Advance Ruling on GST Exemption for Entrance Fees and Toll Collection Rejected Under Section 98(2) of CGST Act

The AAR dismissed an application seeking advance ruling on GST exemption for entrance fees to Brindavan Gardens and bridge toll collection. The application was deemed inadmissible under the first proviso to Section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017, as the identical questions were already pending in proceedings against the applicant, evidenced by a prior assessment order and notice regarding non-payment of GST. The Authority held that considering the same issues would be redundant when they were already under adjudication through existing proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Admissibility of the application seeking advance ruling on the applicability of GST on entrance fee collected for entry into Brindavan Gardens and toll collected for the use of Bridge.

Analysis:
The Applicant, a Public Limited company engaged in irrigation projects and maintaining Brindavan Garden at KRS Dam, filed an application for advance ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 and KGST Act, 2017. The questions raised pertained to the exemption of entrance fee for Brindavan Garden Park and toll collection for the use of the Bridge under specific entries of the notifications. An assessment order and a notice were issued indicating non-payment of GST on the entry fee and other charges collected by the Applicant.

During the personal hearing, the Authorized Representative reiterated the facts. The Authority noted that the provisions of CGST Act and KGST Act are similar unless specified otherwise. The key issue was the admissibility of the application, governed by the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, which prohibits admission if the question raised is pending or decided in any proceedings concerning the applicant under the Act.

Upon examination, it was found that the questions raised in the application regarding the GST applicability on the entrance fee and toll collection were identical to those in the assessment order and notice issued by authorities. As a result, the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act was deemed applicable, leading to the rejection of the application as "inadmissible."

Therefore, the ruling declared the application inadmissible under the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to the questions raised being the same as those in the assessment order and notice, rendering the application redundant.

---