2020 (12) TMI 903 - AAR - GST

Advance Ruling Application on Licensing Services for Broadcasting Deemed Inadmissible

In Re: M/s. Sri. V. Mohandas Pai, Prop. M/s Dheeraj Enterprises,

The application for Advance Ruling regarding the correct classification of Licensing services for broadcasting original films, sound recordings, Radio ... Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application - question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of applicant under any provisions of this Act - Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act 2017 - Classification of services - Licensing services for the right to broadcast and show original films, sound recordings, Radio & Television Programmes etc. - HELD THAT:- The instant application has been filed on 22.09.2020 and the question raised there in is about the classification of the services being provided by the applicant. It is an undisputed fact that a search, of applicant's registered premises, was conducted by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Anti Evasion, Bangalore West Commissionerate under authorization issued by the competent authority on 30.08.2019, a Statement was recorded on 31.08.2019, an offence case was booked on 11.09.2020 and DRC-01A dated 09.07.2020 was issued on the issue of suppression of taxable value. Further, a summon dated 03.09.2020 was issued seeking clarification on the question of classification. The applicant vide letter dated 08.09.2020 to the Department sought a notice on the issue and informed that they will take up the matter of classification with Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce and CBIC. It is pertinent to mention here that the DRC-01A dated 10.09.2020 clearly specified the grounds of quantification out of which one issue is the “Wrong classification resorted under self assessment by the applicant, under SAC 9973 instead of SAC 9996 14”. Thus it is clearly evident that the issue of classification of the services provided by the applicant was under investigation as evident from DRC-01A dated 10.09.2020. Rule 142[1A] of the CGST Rules 2017, as amended, stipulates that the proper officer may, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty, under sub-section (1) of Section 73 or sub-section (1) of Section 74, as the case may be, communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A. Further the said form is prescribed one and contains a reference of the case proceedings, which clearly indicates that proceedings have been initiated and are not concluded. Thus it proves that the case proceedings are pending. The issue raised in the instant application and the issue pending under the proceedings are one and same i.e. classification of the services provided by the applicant. Thus first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 is squarely applicable to the instant case, as all the conditions therein are fulfilled - the application is rejected as “inadmissible”, in terms of first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017. Issues involved:Admissibility of the application for Advance Ruling regarding the correct classification of Licensing services for the right to broadcast and show original films, sound recordings, Radio & Television Programmes.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Admissibility of the applicationThe Authority examined the application filed by the Film distributor seeking an Advance Ruling on the classification of services provided. The first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 states that the Authority shall not admit the application if the question raised is pending or decided in any proceedings under the Act. The conditions to be considered for admission are whether the question is pending or decided in any proceedings, in the case of the applicant, and under any provisions of the Act.Analysis:The records show that the applicant's registered premises were searched, a Statement recorded, an offence case booked, and a DRC-01A issued on the issue of suppression of taxable value. A summon was also issued seeking clarification on the classification question. The DRC-01A specified the grounds of quantification, including the 'Wrong classification resorted under self-assessment by the applicant.' This indicates that the issue of classification was under investigation as of the DRC-01A date.Conclusion:Rule 142[1A] of the CGST Rules 2017 allows communication of details before serving notice, indicating pending proceedings. The issue raised in the application aligns with the pending issue of classification. Therefore, the first proviso to Section 98(2) applies, leading to the rejection of the application as 'inadmissible.'This comprehensive analysis outlines the key legal aspects and findings of the judgment, providing a detailed understanding of the decision regarding the admissibility of the Advance Ruling application.