9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1193 - AAAR - GSTSeeking permission for withdrawal of appeal - Exemption from GST or not - activity of manufacture and supply of Fortified Rice Kernels to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation pursuant to the Pilot Scheme on Fortification of Rice its Distribution under the Public Distribution System project launched by the Central Government - benefit of Notification No. 39/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 18.10.2017 read with G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 17.10.2017 - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, when an opportunity of being heard was extended to the appellant, they sought withdrawal of appeal. The appellant, in this regard, has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA VERSUS PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA ORS. 2011 (1) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Every procedure is to be understood as permissible in law till it is shown to be prohibited in law and as a matter of general principle, prohibition cannot be presumed . Considering that there is no explicit prohibition for withdrawal in the current legal provisions, the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and no ruling is extended - Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017 and Tamil Nadu Goods & Services Tax Act 2017. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 39/2017-Central Tax (Rate) to the manufacture and supply of Fortified Rice Kernels. 3. Validity of the Advance Ruling pronounced by the Appellate Authority. 4. Opportunity for rectification under Section 102 of the Act. 5. Permission to withdraw the appeal under Section 100 of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment clarifies that unless specifically mentioned, provisions under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017 would also apply to the Tamil Nadu Goods & Services Tax Act 2017. This ensures uniformity in interpretation unless specified otherwise. 2. The appeal was filed to determine the applicability of Notification No. 39/2017-Central Tax (Rate) to the manufacture and supply of Fortified Rice Kernels. The Appellate Authority ruled that the notification was not applicable for the period before 01.10.2021 but was applicable thereafter, subject to conditions specified in the notification. 3. The Advance Ruling provided by the Appellate Authority was challenged by the appellant, arguing that they were entitled to the benefits of the notification for the period prior to 01.10.2021. The appellant presented various arguments, including the classification of Fortified Rice Kernels, packaging details, and the intention of free distribution to economically weaker sections, supported by relevant legal precedents. 4. The appellant sought an opportunity for rectification under Section 102 of the Act, emphasizing the importance of the essential nature of Fortified Rice Kernels and challenging the denial of benefits under the notification. The appellant requested withdrawal of the appeal to submit additional legal provisions and precedents to support their case. 5. The appellant's request to withdraw the appeal was considered, citing legal principles and precedents that support the permissibility of withdrawal unless explicitly prohibited by law. The Appellate Authority allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, following the principle that procedures should be considered permissible unless expressly prohibited by law, thereby concluding the case without extending any ruling. By addressing the issues comprehensively, the judgment ensures clarity on the interpretation of tax provisions, application of notifications, the validity of Advance Rulings, opportunities for rectification, and the permissibility of appeal withdrawal under the relevant legal framework.
|
