The application for advance ruling cannot be admitted where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant. Therefore the advance ruling pronounced by the Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling is liable to be declared as void ab-initio.
Advance Ruling— Section 98 of CGST Act—The present appeal has been filed against the Advance Ruling passed by GAAR.
The issue in the present case is not whether the application for advance ruling was ready or otherwise when the proceedings against the appellant were initiated by the DGGI, Surat and whether there was any ulterior motive or mala-fide intention in belatedly filing of such application before the GAAR.
It is evident that the appellant has not informed the aforesaid material facts to the GAAR at any given point of time thereby willfully suppressing the fact from the Authority and obtaining the Ruling by suppressing the facts.
Therefore, the application filed by the appellant before the GAAR was covered under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Held that—This authority is of the view that the appellant has obtained the Advance Ruling by submitting application of advance ruling with suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, and the application was not eligible to be admitted in view of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, in terms of Section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the GGST Act, 2017, the advance ruling pronounced by the Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling is liable to be declared as void ab-initio.
The application for advance ruling cannot be admitted where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant. Therefore the advance ruling pronounced by the Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling is liable to be declared as void ab-initio.
Advance Ruling— Section 98 of CGST Act—The present appeal has been filed against the Advance Ruling passed by GAAR.
The issue in the present case is not whether the application for advance ruling was ready or otherwise when the proceedings against the appellant were initiated by the DGGI, Surat and whether there was any ulterior motive or mala-fide intention in belatedly filing of such application before the GAAR.
It is evident that the appellant has not informed the aforesaid material facts to the GAAR at any given point of time thereby willfully suppressing the fact from the Authority and obtaining the Ruling by suppressing the facts.
Therefore, the application filed by the appellant before the GAAR was covered under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Held that—This authority is of the view that the appellant has obtained the Advance Ruling by submitting application of advance ruling with suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, and the application was not eligible to be admitted in view of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, in terms of Section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the GGST Act, 2017, the advance ruling pronounced by the Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling is liable to be declared as void ab-initio.