TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Authority Upholds Decision on Anil Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Appeal</h1> <h3>In Re: M/s. Anil Milk Products Private Limited</h3> The Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Advance Ruling Authority, rejecting the appeal filed by Anil Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. The decision was ... Scope of Advance Ruling application - Classification of goods - flavored milk - taxable at the rate of 5% under schedule IV of the CGST Act or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- First proviso to section 98(2) stipulates, '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 case of an applicant under any of provisions of this Act.' There are no hesitation in concluding that the instant application is not maintainable in as much as it is hit by the provisions contained in first proviso to section 98(2) of the Act. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the application deserves to be rejected as not admissible in terms of first proviso to section 98(2) of the Act. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Appeal against the order of Advance Ruling No. 19/2019/AAR/R-28/36 dated 18.10.2019 regarding the appropriate classification of flavored milk under the CGST Act.2. Whether the application for advance ruling is maintainable considering the initiation of proceedings by DGGI.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by Anil Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. seeking clarification on the classification of flavored milk under the CGST Act. The appellant argued that the rejection of their application by the Authority of Advance Ruling was based on the non-compliance of the first proviso to section 98(2) of the Act. The appellant contended that the proceedings initiated by DGGI were merely inquiries and not formal proceedings, hence their application for advance ruling should not have been rejected on those grounds.2. The appellant further argued that the DGGI did not explicitly inform them about the purpose and intent of the inquiry, leading to a lack of clarity on their part. The appellant emphasized that they approached the appropriate authority for a ruling in good faith to obtain a binding decision. The appellant highlighted that the DGGI's demand for payment of differential tax liability without concluding the inquiry or issuing a notice under section 73 of the Act was premature and unjustified.3. The Appellate Authority noted that the question at hand pertained to the classification of goods under the Act. It was revealed that the DGGI had initiated an inquiry on the issue before the filing of the instant application for advance ruling. The appellant confirmed receiving summons from DGGI related to the matter before applying to the AAR, indicating intentional non-disclosure of this fact to avoid the provisions of section 98(2). The Authority concluded that the application was not maintainable as it contravened the first proviso to section 98(2) of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Advance Ruling Authority, rejecting the appeal filed by Anil Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. The decision was based on the application being deemed inadmissible due to the ongoing proceedings initiated by DGGI, as per the provisions of the CGST Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
