Since Investigation By DGGI Started Prior To Filing Of Application, AAR Order Is Invalid : Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the term ‘any proceedings’ referred to in the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act/ Andhra Pradesh GST Act (APGST Act), includes within its ambit the investigation initiated against the applicant under the said Act. The bench of Justices U. Durga Prasad Rao and T. Mallikarjuna Rao noted that the proviso to Section 98(2) puts an embargo on the authority of the AAR to admit an application where the question raised in the said application is already pending or decided in any proceedings under the CGST/APGST Act. Thus, the Court concluded that since before the date of filing of an application before the AAR, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) had already commenced investigation under the GST Act against the petitioner/applicant, the order passed by the AAR was vitiated by law. The petitioner, M/s Master Minds, is an educational institution engaged in providing coaching in various professional courses, including Chartered Accountancy (CA). The petitioner filed an application before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) seeking a ruling as to whether the coaching/ training provided by it to its students fell within the term ‘education’ so as to be eligible for exemption of GST under Entry No.66(a) of Notification No.12/2017-CT(Rate), dated 28.06.2017. The AAR held that the petitioner/ applicant was not eligible for exemption. Against this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR), who confirmed the order passed by the AAR. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking to set aside the order of the AAR and the AAAR. The petitioner, Master Minds, argued that even before the date of filing the application before the AAR, its registration under the GST Act was already cancelled. Further, the Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI) had initiated investigation against the petitioner and enquired about the payment of GST. The petitioner had given the statement that no tax on the educational services were submitted by it. Thereafter, the DGGI issued summons to the petitioner. The petitioner added that in view of the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, the AAR cannot admit an application where the question raised in the application is already pending or is decided in any proceedings under the CGST Act, in the case of the applicant. The petitioner, Master Minds, contended that the word ‘any proceedings’ in the proviso to Section 98(2), includes within its ambit investigation also. Thus, since investigation proceedings were pending against the petitioner, the AAR could not have accepted petitioner’s application, it averred. In support of its arguments, the petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 70 of the APGST Act. Referring to the proviso of Section 98(2), the Court reckoned that the proviso puts an embargo on the authority of the AAR to admit an application. “The said embargo says that where the questions raised in the application are already pending or decided by any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of the CGST/APGST Act, the authority shall not admit the application,” the Court noted. Perusing Section 70 of the APGST Act, the Court observed that the proper officer under the APGST Act has the power to summon any person to give evidence or to produce a document in any inquiry, in the same manner as provided in the case of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Further, the said enquiry shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Thus, the bench concluded that the proceedings conducted by the investigating authority under the APGST Act shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings under the CGST/APGST Act. The Court took note that in the case of Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR), Karnataka v. M/s. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited (2020), the AAAR had ruled that since investigation against the applicant was already initiated by the DGGI on the very same issue that was raised before the AAR, the application seeking advance ruling was hit by the provisions of Section 98 (2) of the CGST. The AAAR had thus held that the ruling obtained by the applicant was void ab initio. Thus, the High Court concluded that the term ‘any proceedings’ referred to in the proviso to Section 98(2), encompasses within it the investigation initiated against the applicant under the SGST/CGST Act. “Thus, the above jurisprudence tells us that any proceedings referred to in 98(2) proviso encompasses within it the investigation against the applicant as per the provisions of CGST/APGST Act and if by the date of filing of the application before the ARA, already such proceedings were commenced, the ARA...

Since Investigation By DGGI Started Prior To Filing Of Application, AAR Order Is Invalid : Andhra Pradesh High Court

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parina Katyal

Since Investigation By DGGI Started Prior To Filing Of Application, AAR Order Is Invalid : Andhra Pradesh High Court

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers