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

J88 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
• DGGI was not made party to the Advance Ruling either in the ca-
pacity of the concerned officer or jurisdictional officer.
• Notification No. 14/2017-C.T., dated 1-7-2017 provides that DGGI
will have same power as are exercisable by the Central Tax Officer
of the corresponding rank. The notification does not provide that
DGGI will be jurisdictional officer of all assessee whether under the
administration of Center or State Authority.
• The respondent is under the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner,
State Tax, Pune. Thus DGGI is not jurisdictional/concerned officer
of the respondent and has no locus standii to compel the jurisdic-
tional officer to file an appeal contrary to his own submission before
the Authority for Advance Ruling.
• The Authority for Advance Ruling which has passed the order may
rectify error apparent on record or declare the ruling void if ob-
tained by reason of fraud or suppression. No appeal lies in such
cases. Even otherwise, there is no fraud or suppression in the pre-
sent case.
• DGGI has stated that the respondent has melted the ice creams from
tubs and scooped the same. The fact that the ice cream is melted and
sold in scoops was disclosed in the application by the respondent.
Thus, DGGI officer has wrongly alleged that the respondent has
suppressed the facts.
The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling first condoned the delay in filing ap-
peal by the appellant since the appellant had sufficient cause in filing the appeal
belatedly. The Appellate Authority analyzed the facts of the case and the submis-
sions put forth by the appellant as well as the respondent.
The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling observed that the investi-
gation proceedings were approved on 15-1-2019 and the search was conducted
on 5-2-2019. The statement of the Director, KOTI was recorded on 5-2-2019 and
the statement of the whole time director of KOTI was recorded on 11-2-2019. The
application for advance ruling was filed on 25-2-2019 by the respondent at the
behest of KOTI. The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling found that there
was a deliberate intention on the part of KOTI as well as the respondent to obtain
a decision clandestinely without revealing the issue of investigation being initiat-
ed against KOTI on the very same issue that was raised before the Authority for
Advance Ruling.
The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling did not accept the conten-
tion of the respondent that the present appeal has been filed on the direction of
DGGI. The jurisdictional officer, in the present case, might have given a stand
which was confirmed by the Authority for Advance Ruling and also agreeable to
the respondent. However, later on it was made known to the jurisdictional of-
ficer that the proceedings were pending on the same issue against KOTI and later
on made known to the jurisdictional officer and if he was made aware of the fact
by the respondent that investigations were pending on the same issue against the
franchisee and the respondent was also aware of the proceedings, then the juris-
dictional officer would have brought it to the notice of the Authority for Advance
Ruling surely. Therefore, the jurisdictional officer has a valid reason to be ag-
grieved by the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling and therefore, no in-
congruity on him in filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance
Ruling.
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  28