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>AAR Maharashtra rejects advance ruling application under Section 98 CGST Act due to pending provisional assessment proceedings</h1> <h3>IN RE: MOSAIC INDIA PVT. LTD.</h3> IN RE: MOSAIC INDIA PVT. LTD. - 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 517 (A. A. R. - GST) Issues:1. Classification of subject goods under Heading 2309 for exemption from CGST.2. Classification of subject goods under Heading 2309 for exemption from IGST.3. Classification of subject goods under Heading 2309 for exemption from SGST.4. Appropriate classification and tax rate if not under Heading 2309.Analysis:Issue 1:The applicant sought a ruling on whether the goods they intended to supply should be classified under Heading 2309 for exemption from CGST. The applicant imported BIOFOS Monocalcium Phosphate for animal feed, claiming it falls under Heading 2309 and thus exempt from GST. The applicant argued that the goods enhance nutritional value for animals. The jurisdictional officer, however, contended that the goods should be classified under Chapter Heading 28.35, not 23.09, based on previous disputes and notifications. The officer opposed admitting the application due to ongoing disputes and pending litigations.Issue 2:Similar to the first issue, the applicant also sought a ruling on the classification of goods under Heading 2309 for exemption from IGST. The applicant's contention was that the goods should be exempt from IGST as they fall under Heading 2309. The departmental representative disagreed, citing past disputes and notifications classifying the goods differently under Chapter Heading 28.35. The representative recommended rejecting the application based on ongoing litigations.Issue 3:The applicant inquired about the classification of goods under Heading 2309 for exemption from SGST. The applicant's argument was based on the goods' usage as animal feed and their classification under Heading 2309. The jurisdictional officer, however, maintained that the goods should be classified under Chapter Heading 28.35, leading to ongoing disputes and pending litigations, suggesting the rejection of the application.Issue 4:In case the goods are not classified under Heading 2309, the applicant sought guidance on the appropriate classification and applicable tax rates for CGST, SGST, and IGST. The applicant's claim was based on the goods' intended use as animal feed and their classification under Heading 2309. However, the departmental representative argued for a different classification under Chapter Heading 28.35, emphasizing the existing disputes and litigations surrounding the classification issue.The Authority rejected the application under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, as the applicant's import consignments were already provisionally assessed for classification under the Customs Act in the GST regime. The rejection was based on the proviso that the application cannot be entertained if the question raised is already pending or decided in any proceedings, as confirmed during the hearing. The rejection was in line with the legal provisions, and the application was not admitted for an advance ruling.
TaxTMI 