Application for advance ruling not maintainable if summons were issued by DGGSTI on same issue: AAAR

Case Details: Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Madhya Pradesh Anik Milk Products (P.) Ltd., In re - [2022] 142 taxmann.com 162 (AAAR-Madhya Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • V.K. Saxena & Raghwendra Kumar Singh, Member

Facts of the Case

The appellant was engaged in processing of milk and milk products including flavoured milk. It filed application for determining proper classification of flavoured milk. The application was rejected by the Authority for Advance Ruling on the ground that the matter was pending before the DGGSTI. It filed appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR).

The appellant contended that summons were issued by the DGGSTI and they were also unsure of the classification. Therefore, it filed application for advance ruling. Moreover, the DGGSTI in summons asked for the manufacturing process of flavoured milk. Therefore, it was a fact finding enquiry and not a proceedings.

AAAR Held

The AAAR observed that as per first proviso to Section 98(2), an application for advance ruling is not maintainable where question raised for advance ruling is already pending. During the hearing, the authorised representative of appellant also confirmed that they received summons from DGGSTI. In the instant case, the appellant had intentionally avoided disclosure of pending investigation before DGGSTI as enquiry was initiated prior to filing of application. Thus, the application for advance ruling was not maintainable and appeal was rejected.