9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misrepresentation of facts , may be declared void ab-initio. The appellant has obtained the Advance Ruling by submitting application of advance ruling with suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, and the application was not eligible to be admitted in view of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, in terms of Section 104 of CGST Act, 2017, and the GGST Act, 2017, the advance ruling pronounced by the Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling is liable to be declared as void ab-initio. - GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/26 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2021 - J. P. GUPTA AND SEEMA ARORA, MEMBER Present for the appellant : None At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the CGST Act, 2017 ) and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the GGST Act, 2017 ) are in pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act, 2017 would also mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1905 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 accordingly, vide entry at Sr. No. 96 under Noti. No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, product in question is exempted from the levy of tax. 6. The GAAR, vide Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/76/2020 dated 17.09.2020 , inter-alia observed that Papad has not been defined or clarified under Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the CGST Act, 2017 or the Notifications issued under the CGST Act, 2017/ GGST Act, 2017 / IGST Act, 2017. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that the word not defined in the statute must be construed in its popular sense, meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it . It is to be construed as understood in common language. Further, it is observed that for proper and correct classification, not only ingredients of the product but use of the product, common parlance test and marketability of the product is equally a deciding factor. It is also observed that in common parlance or in market, Fryums are not sold as PAPAD , instead PAPAD are sold as papad and Fryums are sold as Fryums . Both the products are different and have their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not acknowledged this fact. 9. The appellant has submitted that Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that the authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending in any proceedings under any provision of the Act. Section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017 is reproduced here under : 98. Procedure on receipt of application.- (1) On receipt of an application, the Authority shall cause a copy thereof to be forwarded to the concerned officer and, if necessary, call upon him to furnish the relevant records: Provided that where any records have been called for by the Authority in any case, such records shall, as soon as possible, be returned to the said concerned officer. (2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for and after hearing the applicant or his authorised representative and the concerned officer or his authorised representative, by order, either admit or reject the application: Provided that the Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officers of the DGGI Surat had visited the premises of the appellant and recorded the statement of the partners, and proceedings related to question raised in the application for advance ruling was already pending when the application for advance ruling was filed before the GAAR, then the appellant should not have ticked the item (a) of column 17 of Form GST ARA-01. 15. Further, the appellant in their Advance Ruling application has not mentioned the abovementioned fact that the proceeding against them has already been initiated and was pending at the material time. The appellant has contended that vide letter dated 10.10.2020, they informed the Advance Ruling Authority that their representative during the personal hearing had mentioned the fact but the Advance Ruling Authority have not mentioned the said fact in the Advance Ruling pronounced vide Order No. GUJ/GAAR/R/76/2020 dated 17.09.2020. In this regard, the record of personal hearing has been perused and it is observed that the virtual Personal hearing (through video conferencing) was conducted and recorded as During the personal hearing conducted through video conferencing, the representative of the applicant reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
