2025 (10) TMI 712 - AAR - GST

AAR refuses advance ruling under first proviso to Section 98(2) CGST where identical tax issues subject to pending recovery proceedings.

AAR rejected. Applicant's advance ruling application filed 11-02-2025 was refused because identical questions-classification and exemption eligibility and ... Maintainability of Advance ruling application - identical questions are already pending in departmental proceedings initiated prior to the filing of the AAR application - Classification of service - Solid Waste Management-Revamping of existing dumped garbage in compost yards by bio-mining process provided by the applicant to Sattur Municipality - service provided to Sattur Municipality is exempted as per Sl. No. 3 of N/N. 12/2017 dated 28-06-2017 or not - HELD THAT:- The AAR application was filed by the applicant on 11-02-2025. The date of filing of AAR application is nearly a year after DRC-01A was issued by the department. The mis-match noticed by the department is with regard to applicability of tax on the turnover declared by the applicant in their GSTR-9 annual returns while Zero turnover has been declared in their GST-3B returns. The reason for initiation of recovery proceeding against the applicant as a result of scrutiny and assessment is akin to the clarification sought by them and therefore, the time line of initiation of scrutiny and assessment and application before the Authority of Advance Ruling need to be seen. The issue with regard to scrutiny and assessment is the difference due to declaration of turnover in GSTR-9 and GSTR-3B and its taxability which resulted in the non-payment of GST on the turnover declared by the applicant. The queries raised by the applicant in their application is also on the classification and the eligibility of exemption notification. From the above, it is clear that the issue involved in the scrutiny and assessment carried out by the jurisdictional assessing officer and the one covered under the query for advance ruling raised by the applicant are one and the same. Further, it is seen that while the application for advance ruling in the instant case was filed by the applicant online on 11.02.2025, the DRC-01A seeking clarification on the mis-match issued by the assessing officer is on 22-03-2024. The application for clarification filed by the applicant before AAR is nearly a year after initiating recovery proceedings by the department against them - The first proviso to Section 98(2) restricts admission of application seeking advance ruling where the questions are already pending in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the term ‘proceedings’ assumes immense significance in the context of the instant case. The application for advance ruling filed online dated 11.02.2025 by the applicant is liable for rejection under the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST / TNGST Acts, 2017, in view of the fact that ‘proceedings’ on the same issue was already pending against the applicant. The advance ruling application is rejected. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED - Whether an application for Advance Ruling is admissible where identical questions are already pending in departmental proceedings initiated prior to the filing of the AAR application. - Whether the questions raised in the AAR application (classification of service as 'Solid Waste Management-Revamping of existing dumped garbage in compost yards by bio-mining process' and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28-06-2017) are distinct from or identical to issues under scrutiny in assessment/recovery proceedings. - Whether the timing of filing the AAR application (after issuance of departmental notices/intimation and initiation of recovery proceedings) affects admission under the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the Act. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Admissibility of AAR application where identical questions are pending in departmental proceedings Legal framework: The Authority examined Section 98(2) (first proviso) of the Act which mandates that the Authority shall not admit an application where the question raised is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any provision of the Act. Precedent treatment: The decision relies on a textual application of Section 98(2) and does not invoke or overrule earlier AAR precedents except noting that a prior AAR decision was cited by the applicant; that prior decision was not determinative of admissibility here because it did not address the timing and pendency of departmental proceedings. Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority construed the phrase 'already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant' to include departmental scrutiny, show-cause and assessment/recovery proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional officer. The Authority compared the subject-matter of the AAR application (classification and exemption eligibility) with issues raised in departmental intimation DRC-01A and subsequent show-cause/assessment orders concerning discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 and resulting tax/interest demand. Finding the issues to be one and the same (taxability of turnover declared in GSTR-9 but not in GSTR-3B, i.e., classification/exemption question underlying the mismatch), the Authority held the question was 'already pending' in proceedings initiated before filing of the AAR application. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The admissibility rule in the first proviso to Section 98(2) prevents admission where identical questions are pending in departmental proceedings that preceded the AAR application; Obiter - Observations on the general significance of the term 'proceedings' beyond facts of the case. Conclusion: The AAR application is not admissible and is liable for rejection under the first proviso to Section 98(2) because identical questions were pending in earlier departmental proceedings initiated prior to filing of the AAR application. Issue 2 - Whether the classification and exemption questions in the AAR application are distinct from the issues in the assessment/recovery proceedings Legal framework: Classification of service and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) are substantive questions under the GST law; assessment and recovery proceedings concern reconciliation of returns (GSTR-3B, GSTR-1, GSTR-9) and recovery of tax/interest where taxability is in dispute. Precedent treatment: Applicant relied on an earlier AAR decision favourable to a similar activity; the Authority distinguished that reliance because admissibility turns on pendency and chronology of proceedings rather than on merits or precedential parity. Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority analysed the sequence of events: departmental intimation (DRC-01A) dated 22-03-2024, show-cause notice dated 16-04-2024, assessment orders including a fresh assessment after High Court remand dated 24-04-2025, and the AAR application filed online on 11-02-2025. The Authority found the departmental proceedings were triggered by the same substantive question (taxability/exemption of the declared turnover) and thus the subject matter was identical. The Authority emphasized chronology - the department's proceedings preceded the AAR application by nearly a year - making the AAR application a collateral attempt to obtain clarification during ongoing proceedings, contrary to Section 98(2) proviso. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the departmental adjudicatory process has already been initiated on the same substantive question, the AAR is not the appropriate forum for admission; Obiter - Comparison with other administrative or judicial remedies and the applicant's ability to contest assessment via appeals (noted but not decided as determinative). Conclusion: Classification/exemption questions in the AAR application are identical to those under departmental proceedings; hence the application is inadmissible under Section 98(2) first proviso. Issue 3 - Effect of timing of filing AAR application after initiation of recovery/scrutiny proceedings Legal framework: The first proviso to Section 98(2) bars admission where the issue is pending in any proceedings 'in the case of an applicant'; admissibility is therefore time-sensitive and dependent on whether proceedings precede the AAR filing. Precedent treatment: The Authority applied Section 98(2) literally; no departure from statutory language was made. Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority focused on temporal sequence: DRC-01A (22-03-2024) preceded AAR filing (11-02-2025). The mismatch leading to recovery proceedings was the same substantive controversy for which the AAR sought ruling. Because the department had already taken action and the assessment process was pending or concluded (with orders challenged and remanded), the Authority held that admitting the AAR would conflict with the statutory bar. The Authority also considered the purpose of the provision - to prevent parallel adjudication and forum shopping - and applied it to deny admission where proceedings were earlier. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Chronology matters; an AAR application filed after initiation of departmental proceedings on the same issue must be rejected under Section 98(2) first proviso; Obiter - Remarks on prevention of forum-shopping and the need to adhere to principles of natural justice in departmental proceedings (illustrative). Conclusion: The belated filing of the AAR application (post initiation of departmental scrutiny and recovery proceedings) precludes admission; the application is therefore rejected on this ground. Final Disposition (linked conclusion) - The Authority concluded that the AAR application is liable for rejection under the first proviso to Section 98(2) because identical questions were already pending in departmental proceedings initiated prior to the filing of the AAR application. The advance ruling application is rejected for the reasons discussed supra.