Page 194 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

128 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 40
(c) That they have asked six questions but the SCN has been issued for
two questions only, thus they are assuming that the ruling would be
provided on the remaining four questions which are not objected in
the SCN.
(d) That from the plain reading of first proviso to Section 98(2) of the
Act, the only ground on which the application can be rejected is
when proceedings are pending or decided as the case may be, in the
case of applicant and no other person.
(e) That the idea behind creation of such authority was to ensure, strik-
ing out the ambiguities in the statute in terms of interpretation, tax-
ability, classification etc. so as to ensure correct taxable position and
mitigate unwanted financial consequences for future transactions.
The entire concept of advance ruling is only taxpayer specific and
thus apprehensions placed upon in the SCN is totally misplaced
and not in accordance with the legislative scheme.
(f) That on harmonious reading of Section 103(1) & (2) of the Act, it can
be seen that the advance ruling would be valid so long as there is no
change in law and the moment there is change in law either due to
legislative amendment or due to pronouncement of judgment by
courts, the binding nature of the ruling shall come to an end and
thus apprehension placed in the SCN regarding conflicting judg-
ment is not correct as per the express provisions of the Act.
(g) That from the facts mentioned in the SCN it can be seen that there is
neither a final nor a temporary order of any kind issued by the
Hon’ble High Court in the writ petition, basis which the purported
SCN is issued. On the contrary, the judgment of Hon’ble Odisha
High Court in the matter of M/s. Safari Retreat, (P) Ltd. is the final
binding order in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. On perusal of records, we find the applicant has sought advance rul-
ing on the admissibility of ITC in respect of goods/services received while con-
structing hotel including restaurant & banquet hall. We also find that revenue
has brought to the notice of the authority that on the similar issue M/s. Rosewood
Hospitality (P) Ltd. had filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 1898/2019) before Hon’ble
High Court, of Uttarakhand but copy of the said WP was not produced before
the authority. Further the applicant had intimated the authority that the issue of
admissibility of ITC on goods/services received or construction of immovable
property has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in the case of
M/s. Safari Retreats (P) Ltd. [2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 341 (Ori.)] and thus issue in hand is
no more res integra. However, the revenue has filed SLP (C) Diary No.
37367/2019 against the said judgment before Hon’ble Supreme Court [2020 (32)
G.S.T.L. J120 (S.C.)]. The applicant has also intimated the authority that similar
petition is filed in the Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of DLF Cyber City De-
velopers Ltd. v. UOI and the said petition is admitted by the said Hon’ble High
Court.
8. We find that the impugned notice dated 17-3-2020 was issued to the
applicant in terms of proviso to Section 98(2) of the Act inasmuch as the issue in
hand i.e. admissibility of ITC on goods/services received for construction of im-
movable property, is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand.
GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  210