1. In terms of Section 102 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods & Services Tax Act 2017 (“the Act”, in Short), this Order may be amended by the Appellate authority so as to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record, if such error is noticed by the Appellate authority on its own accord, or is brought to its notice by the concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer or the appellant within a period of six months from the date of the Order.
Provided that no rectification which has the effect of enhancing the tax liability or reducing the amount of admissible input tax credit shall be made, unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of being heard.
2. Under Section 103(1) of the Act; this Advance ruling pronounced by the Appellate Authority under Chapter XVII of the Act shall be binding only
(a) On the appellant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 97 for advance ruling;
(b) On the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the appellant.
3. Under Section 103 (2) of the Act, this advance ruling shall be binding unless the law, facts or circumstances supporting the said advance ruling have changed.
4. Under Section 104(1) of the Act, where the Appellate Authority finds that advance ruling pronounced by it under sub-section (1) of Section 101 has been obtained by the appellant by fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, it may, by order, declare such ruling to be void ab-initio and thereupon all the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall apply to the appellant as if such advance ruling has never been made.
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Central Goods and Service Tax Act,2017 and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the Central Goods and Service Tax Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act.
The subject appeal is filed under Section 100 (1) of the Central. Goods & Services Tax Act 2017 by Tvl. Rasi Nutri Foods, (herein after referred to as the Appellant), having their registered office at 1/67A,1/67B, Salem Trichy Main Road, Ayeepalayam, Athanur, Rasipuram, Namakkal-63630. They are registered under the GST Act, 2017 vide GSTIN 33AAGFR9140J1Z2. They have stated that they participated in the tender opened by Government of Tamilnadu for supply of fortified rice kernel(FRK) and was awarded the contract.
2. They had sought Advance Ruling to clarify
whether Notification No. 39/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 18.10.2017 read with G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 17.10.2017 issued by the Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, would be applicable to the Appellants activity of manufacture and supply of Fortified Rice Kernels to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation pursuant to the Pilot Scheme on “Fortification of Rice & its Distribution under the Public Distribution System” project launched by the Central Government.
3. The AAR pronounced the following rulings:
(i) Notification 39/2017-CT(R) dated 18.10.2017 read with G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 17.10.2017 issued by the Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, is not applicable to manufacture and supply of Fortified Rice Kernels to rice mills designated by Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation pursuant to the Pilot Scheme on “Fortification of Rice & its Distribution under the Public Distribution System” project launched by the Central Government for the period upto 30.09.2021.
(ii) Notification 39/2017-CT(R) dated 18.10.2017 read with G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 17.10.2017 issued by the Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, as amended by Notification No. 11/2021-C.T.(Rate) dated 30.09.2021 is applicable to the supply of Fortified Rice Kernels (Pre-mix), by the appellant, for the Pilot Scheme on “Fortification of Rice & its Distribution under the Public Distribution System” project launched by the Central Government, from 01.10.2021 onwards, under Sl.No. (b) of Column (3) of the said Notification subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated under Column (4) of the said Notification.
4. Aggrieved with the above said ruling, that for the period prior to 01.10.2021, they Were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 39/2017-CTR dated 18.10.2017, they have filed this appeal and submitted the copy of application in Form GST ARA – 02 and also submitted a copy of Challan evidencing payment of application fees of ₹ 10,000/- each under sub-rule (1) of Rule 104 of CGST Rules, 2017 and TNGST Rules, 2017. In the grounds of Appeal, they inter-alia, stated that:
(i) 2006 (202) ELT 278 – Bharat Textiles & Proofing Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise at para 14.
(ii) (2016) 15 SCC 491 – Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Fitrite Packers
(iii) (2015) 14 SCC 47 – Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
5. The appellant was granted an opportunity to be personally heard on virtual mode on 28.01.2022. The appellant requested a short adjournment and requested the case to be posted on 09.02.2022. Accepting the request, the case was posted for hearing on 09.02.2022 Ms. S. Vishnupriya, Advocate appeared for the hearing virtually and sought withdrawal of the appeal application by filing a Memo. When asked about the specific provision under GST under which the withdrawal is sought, she stated that the appellate forum has an inherent power to allow withdrawal of the application. She was allowed to file a written submission with legal provisions/precedence on their request for withdrawal. In the Memo filed, they stated that while arguing the issue before the lower Authority, they had placed reliance on certain judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on the scope of specific expressions contained in Notification dated 18.10.2017, which has not been referred by the Lower Authority in the Order dated 21.10.2021.; that they intend moving an application under Section 102 of the Act before the Hon’ble Authority for Advance Ruling to reiterate their submissions on the issue and place the decisions of the Court before the Authority and therefore prayed to permit them to withdraw the present appeal with leave to place the decisions before the Lower Authority by way of separate application for rectification and that the withdrawal of the appeal may not be treated as a relinquishment of their case as to applicability of Notification dated 18.10.2017.
6. The appellant submitted the following written submissions on 18.02.2022.
i) Bijay nanda patnaik Vs Satrughna Sahu and others-AIR 1963 SC 1566 at para 7
ii) Biman C Karmakar and others Vs State of West Bengal and others-(2001) 10 SCC 635 at para 3
Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs Prakash Chandra Mishra and others-2011 (1) TMI 175-SC.
7. The appellant has sought withdrawal of the appeal filed by them. Chapter XVII of GST Act provides the statutory provisions in respect of Advance Ruling and Section 100 (1) states as follows:
(1) The Appellate Authority may, after giving the parties to the appeal or reference an opportunity of being heard, pass such order as it thinks fit, confirming or modifying the ruling appealed against or referred to.
In the case at hand, when an opportunity of being heard was extended to the appellant, they sought withdrawal of appeal. The appellant, in this regard, has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs Prakash Chandra Mishra and others-2011(1) TMI 175-SC, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Every procedure is to be understood as permissible in law till it is shown to be prohibited in law and as a matter of general principle, prohibition cannot be presumed”. Abiding the law set by the Apex court, considering that there is no explicit prohibition for withdrawal in the current legal provisions, the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and no ruling is extended.