Proceedings have already been initiated by Revenue in July 2021 against M/s Jabsons with respect to subject questions raised in the application. The Advance Ruling cannot be used as a mechanism to nullify the inquiry proceedings already initiated by the Revenue vide section 70(1) of CGST Act.
Advance Ruling- Classification of Goods- In the instant case, applicant is seeking a Ruling on GST rate on cited Roasted Chana products.
The fact on record is that Revenue initiated the Summons proceedings vide section 70(1) CGST Act in July 2021. We note that as per Section 70(2) of CGST Act, every such inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereby we hold that subject inquiry initiated vide Section 70(1) of the CGST Act by the Revenue is a judicial proceeding. We hold that said investigation initiated by Revenue is a ‘proceeding’ within the ambit of Section 98 (2) of CGST Act. We hold that the Advance Ruling cannot be used as a mechanism to nullify the inquiry proceedings already initiated by the Revenue vide section 70(1) of CGST Act.
Held that- The subject application is hereby rejected as non-maintainable and inadmissible.
Proceedings have already been initiated by Revenue in July 2021 against M/s Jabsons with respect to subject questions raised in the application. The Advance Ruling cannot be used as a mechanism to nullify the inquiry proceedings already initiated by the Revenue vide section 70(1) of CGST Act.
Advance Ruling- Classification of Goods- In the instant case, applicant is seeking a Ruling on GST rate on cited Roasted Chana products.
The fact on record is that Revenue initiated the Summons proceedings vide section 70(1) CGST Act in July 2021. We note that as per Section 70(2) of CGST Act, every such inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereby we hold that subject inquiry initiated vide Section 70(1) of the CGST Act by the Revenue is a judicial proceeding. We hold that said investigation initiated by Revenue is a ‘proceeding’ within the ambit of Section 98 (2) of CGST Act. We hold that the Advance Ruling cannot be used as a mechanism to nullify the inquiry proceedings already initiated by the Revenue vide section 70(1) of CGST Act.
Held that- The subject application is hereby rejected as non-maintainable and inadmissible.