TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of admissible input tax credit shall be made, unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of being heard. 2. Under Section 103(1) of the Act, this Advance ruling pronounced by the Appellate Authority under Chapter XVII of the Act shall be binding only,- (a) on the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 97 for advance ruling; (b) on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. 3. Under Section 103 (2) of the Act, this advance ruling shall be binding unless the law, facts or circumstances supporting the said advance ruling have changed. 4. Under Section 104(1) of the Act, where the Appellate Authority finds that advance ruling pronounced by it under sub-section (1) of Section 101 has been obtained by the appellant by fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, it may, by order, declare such ruling to be void ab-initio and thereupon all the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall apply to the appellant as if such advance ruling has never been made. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lows. "17. I hereby declare that the question raised in the application is not (tick) Already pending in any proceedings in the applicant's case under any of the provisions of the Act Already decided in any proceedings in the applicant's case under any of the provisions of the Act The above was raised during the virtual hearing. The Appellant, vide their submissions dated 16.03.2023, stated that non-disclosure of enquiry/summons under Section 70 of CGST Act as 'proceedings' in their application does not amount to suppression and they were eligible for a ruling by AAR. Further, vide their letter dated 03.07.2023, they submitted that they rely on AAAR-Gujarat ruling in the case of M/s Shalby Limited, wherein it was stated that either SCN or DRC-01 should be issued by the GST authorities to fall under the head 'proceedings'. 2.4. The AAR, Tamil Nadu, vide its order 18/ARA/2023 dated 19/06/2023 rejected their application under first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, on the ground that summons issued u/s 70 is a proceeding under the CGST Act. The Original Authority vide Order No: 18/ARA/2023 dated 19.06.2023, had ruled rejecting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... • The Advance Ruling (Appeal) No. GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2022/22 in the M/s. Shalby Limited, wherein the Appellate Authority ruled that: a. Section 98(2) will be attracted only when a show cause notice has been issued or order is passed which is not there in the present case and the investigation initiated by state tax is not within the ambit of the term proceedings. To this extent, appellant relied upon judgement of Delhi High Court in case of CIT-I Vs Authority of Advance Ruling [2020] 119 Taxmann. Com 80 (Delhi HC) and the case of Sage Publication Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) reported at [2016] 387 ITR 437 (Delhi), which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in (2017) 246 Taxman 57 (SC). b. The term 'Proceedings' only includes any proceedings that may result in a decision i.e. show cause notice or order and cannot include mere inquiry or investigation initiated by investigation agencies as Show Cause Notice is the point of commencement of any proceeding as per Master Circular No. 1053/0212017-CX dated 10.03.2017 issued by CBIC. • They rely on the following judgments of the Honourable Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd therefore, inquiry or investigation would not come within the ambit of the word "proceedings" • Crave leave for submission of additional grounds at the time of personal hearing. Hence, the Appellant prayed that the Appellate Authority may pass orders to set aside impugned order under Appeal and pass such other orders, as deemed fit. 4. Further to this, the Appellant vide their letter dated 27.09.2023, filed additional grounds of Appeal, wherein they stated that: • AAR in their ruling vide para 6 stated as follows: "DGGI Office has also quoted High Court of Andhra Pradesh order dated 23.11.2022 in WP No. 5571 of 2021, which states that issuance of summons under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017, is the commencement of investigation/proceedings as per CGST Act, 2017." • The said additional material submitted to AAR by DGGI was not brought to the notice of the Appellant and thereby principal of natural justice was not followed in as much as they have not been extended an opportunity to comment on the submissions of DGGI w.r.t Andhra Pradesh High Court order dated 23.11.2022. • Tamil Nadu State Appellate Authority for Adv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs to our attention that the additional material furnished by the DGGI Office to the Advance Ruling Authority was not brought to their notice. Accordingly, the appellant states that the principles of natural justice have not been followed in as much as they have not been extended an opportunity to comment on the submissions of DGGI with regard to the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court Order dated 23.11.2022. Further, we find that the appellant had enclosed a copy of the Order in Appeal No. AAAR/07/2019(AR) dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Tamilnadu State Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of A.M. Abdul Rahman Rowther & Co., on the same facts, and opined that justice will be met by recommending the case to the lower authority to extend an opportunity to the appellant and then decide the case as per the provisions of law. Accordingly, the issue before us for determination is whether the rejection of application filed by the appellant for advance ruling, by the Lower Authority is as per the provisions of law and Principles of Natural Justice. 6.5. On perusal of the original order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority vide Advance Ruling No. 18/ARA/2023 dated 19.06....