Advance Ruling— The present appeal has been filed against the order of Authority for Advance Ruling.

The Appellant M/s Saisanket enterprises is a Works Contractor engaged in executing irrigation related works contracts. 

The Appellant had received a sub contract from M/s Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd (M/s Navayuga). By virtue of agreement he is executing' certain works contracts pertaining to Narmada Valley Project. The said works is part of the work entrusted to Ms Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd by the Narmada Valley Development Authority of MP Government for executing the work of dam in the State of MP.

QUESTIONS RAISED BEFORE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING (AAR)

“What is rate of tax applicable to a sub contractor, where, he executes works contract pertaining to dam, wherein the principal contractor is liable for tax @ 12%, for the period from 22-01-2017 to 25-01-2018?

RULING PRONOUNCED BY AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING (AAR)

i. The application filed by the applicant under advance ruling under CGST Act 2017 is hereby rejected as per the first proviso of the provision of section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017

The first proviso to section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017 is very clear, that the authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in case of an applicant under any of provisions of this Act. We find that Advance Ruling Authority has rightly rejected the appellant's application as per the first proviso to section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017 on the grounds that the question raised by the appellant before the Authority is pending with the DGGSTI and proceeding against the appellant is underway by the DGGSTI, Regional Unit, Indore.

Held that— There is no hesitation in concluding that the instant appeal is not maintainable in as much as it is covered in the first proviso to section 98(2) of the CGST, Act, 2017 and not maintainable under section 100(1) of CGST, Act, 2017 as well.