Page 27 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

2020 ] VALIDITY OF ADVANCE RULING OBTAINED UNDER GST LAWS J87
served. This act is in contradiction to the submission before the Au-
thority for Advance Ruling that they do 70% of ice cream resale in
tubs with MRP as received and therefore misled the Authority for
Advance Ruling to that extent.
• The evidences collected proved that the activity undertaken by the
respondent is a composite supply. The respondent is under an obli-
gation to maintain prescribed standards like design of sitting place,
ambient temperature, illumination, hygiene of premises, attire and
hygiene of service staff so as to ensure that the customer gets a
unique experience while consuming the food items.
• The respondent has the qualities of a restaurant, eating joint, mess,
canteen, cafeteria etc., referred to in Notification No. 11/2017-C.T.
(Rate), dated 28-6-2017 as amended from time to time prescribes
GST rate @ 5% without input tax credit.
• The respondent has charged and recovered GST from the ultimate
consumers @ 18% but not deposited to the Government.
• It appears that KOTI had its own role behind the application made
to the Authority for Advance Ruling to get the advance rulings in
their favour and in order to escape from the clutches of the investi-
gations of the DGGI.
• The application filed by the respondent is not maintainable as pro-
ceedings were already initiated before the filing of the application
before the Authority for Advance Ruling.
• The present respondent and KOTI, who are the hands behind this
legal tangle, should not be allowed to misuse a process of law which
is a tool for business facilitation, to undermine the presence investi-
gation which is going on across the country.
• Therefore, the impugned advance ruling had been obtained by way
of suppressing the material facts from the Authority for Advance
Ruling and hence the impugned ruling given by the Authority for
Advance ruling is liable to be quashed holding it void ab initio in
terms of Section 104 of the Act.
The respondent submitted the following before the Appellate Authority -
• The affidavit filed by DGGI officer and present appeal is incorrect
on facts as well as on law and thus liable to be dismissed.
• There is no proceeding pending against the respondent.
• Despite all the averments made by the DGGI officer in his affidavit,
he has failed to submit any evidence of any proceeding initiated
against the respondent.
• No summons or inquiry has been initiated against the respondent
till date.
• The Authority for Advance Ruling has upheld the claim of the ju-
risdictional officer in the application filed by the respondent before
the Authority for Advance Ruling.
• Then the jurisdictional officer is not an aggrieved person against the
ruling given by the Authority for Advance Ruling and as such the
appeal filed in this case is not proper.
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  27