The present petition is arising out of the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling in Karnataka Goods and Services Tax, Bengaluru, in Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 46/2020 under Section 98(4) of the CGST Tax Act, 2017 and under 98(4) of the KGST Act, 2017.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, operating under GSTIN No.29AAHCM2560M1Z1. He is engaged in the business for providing services for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste (for short ‘TSDF’) and for execution of the said purpose it has obtained land on lease from the Government of Karnataka (KIADB) and developed Landfilling pit for processing and disposal of hazardous waste.

3. As the petitioner was having some confusion in respect of payment of GST, filed an application on 09.03.2020 posing a specific question “whether the term “other civil structure” used in the definition of ‘Plant and Machinery’ restricts the Landfilling pit from considering it as Plant and Machinery and thereby restricts the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 17(5)(d) of the GST Act” and thereafter applied for an advance ruling on the aforesaid subject. An order was passed by the competent Authority for Advance Ruling on 11.09.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the competent authority before passing an order has referred the matter to the Principal Commissioner of Tax, Bangalore West Commissionerate, Bengaluru, who is the top most Officer in the Commissioner’s Office and the said Principal Commissioner of Central Tax has given an opinion on the subject and in his report he has stated that the structure constructed by the present petitioner is a concrete structure. Based upon the report submitted by the Principal Commissioner of the Central Tax, an order has been passed on 11.09.2020 by the Authority for Advance Ruling.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that so called opinion/report of the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax was not given to the petitioner at any point of time and the order is based on the aforesaid report is violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play.

6. Sri Vikram A. Huilgol, learned AGA, has stated before this Court that the order passed by the competent authority for Advance Ruling is an appealable order under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017 and all the grounds can be raised before the Authority for Advance Ruling.

7. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Authority for Advanced Ruling and in the present case principles of natural justice and fair play have certainly been violated as the report of the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax was never given to the petitioner at any point of time. The petitioner has now obtained a detailed report submitted by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax from the Right to Information Act and he is having the aforesaid report.

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the principles of natural justice and fair play has been violated, alternative remedy will not be a bar in the present case, the matter is remitted back to the Authority for Advance Ruling. The order dated 11.09.2020 is set aside. The petitioner shall be free to argue the matter afresh taking into account the report submitted by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax as the same is already in his possession. The Authority for Advance Ruling shall be free to pass appropriate order in accordance with law without being influenced by its own earlier order within a period of 45 days from today. It is needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

The petitioner shall appear before the Authority for Advance Ruling on 26.04.2021.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.