Tax Dispute Over DDGS & DWGS Classification: AAR Rejects Application on Procedural Grounds

The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of Distillery Dry Grains Soluble (DDGS) and Distillery Wet Grains Soluble (DWGS) under GST tax slabs. The applicant sought clarification on the HSN Code for these products, arguing against a higher tax rate. The jurisdictional officer issued a notice for a substantial tax amount, leading to the applicant seeking an advance ruling. However, the Authority for Advance Ruling rejected the application, citing procedural grounds under the CGST Act. The judgment focused on the inadmissibility of the application due to pending proceedings, without delving into the substantive merits of the case, ultimately leading to the rejection of the application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Classification of Distillery Dry Grains Soluble (DDGS) and Distillery Wet Grains Soluble (DWGS) under GST tax slabs.

Analysis:
The case involved an application filed by M/s. Crux Biotech Pvt Ltd. seeking clarification on the accurate Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) Code for DDGS and DWGS (Cattle feed) under the GST tax slabs. The applicant argued that the introduction of GST should not alter the classification of the by-product, as earlier, Central Excise Duty was paid at a NIL rate under CETA 2309. However, the jurisdictional officer took a different view, stating that the applicant, being a manufacturer of IMFL/ENA, falls under the brewing/distillery unit category, and the residues specifically come under HSN Code 2303, taxable at 5%.

The jurisdictional officer issued a notice to the applicant for the tax amount payable under section 73(5)/74(5) read with Rule 142(1A), amounting to Rs. 4,67,80,779 for the sales turnovers of DDGS/DWGS from July 2017 to October 2020. Additionally, an inspection was conducted by the officer, highlighting that the applicant approached the Advance Ruling authority after the initiation of proceedings against them, which was seen as a contravention of the proviso to section 98(2) of the APGST Act.

During the virtual hearing, the authorized representative of the applicant reiterated the submissions made earlier. However, the Authority for Advance Ruling, after examining the issues raised and the submissions, found that the application was not admissible due to the proviso under section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. This provision states that the authority shall not admit an application if the question raised is already pending or decided in any proceedings concerning the applicant under the Act. Therefore, the plea for admission of the application for advance ruling was rejected, and the application was not admitted.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the inadmissibility of the application due to the pending proceedings with the proper officer, as per the proviso under section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Authority for Advance Ruling did not delve into the merits of the case but rather based its decision on the procedural aspect, ultimately rejecting the application.

---