Since the matter is pending in a proceeding, authority cannot give ruling
Maintainability of application— In the instant case, the Appellant had applied for an advance ruling on the question of classification of the items “Whole Wheat Parota” and “Malabar Parota” i.e whether they are classifiable under Chapter Heading 1905 attracting GST at 5%. The Authority for Advance Ruling vide its ruling dated 22nd May 2020 held that the impugned products are classifiable under Chapter Heading 2106 and are not eligible for GST rate at 5%.
Being aggrieved by the said ruling, the Appellant is before us in appeal. The Appellant had argued at great length as to why the impugned products should be more appropriately classified under Chapter Heading 1905 attracting 5%
Held that— The above case does not find favour with us for the reason that in this case the summons dated 09-07-2019 issued by the DGGI clearly stated that the manufacturing process of parotas was one of the matters being investigated and the deposition made by Shri. Hedge Vice-President (Finance) of the Appellants Company before the DGGI on 15-07-2019 was specifically on the subject matter of classification of Whole Wheat Parota and Malabar Parota and the eligibility of the concessional rate of GST in terms of entry Sl.No.99A of the rate notification.
We find that the application for advance ruling could not have been made in this case as it is hit by the provisions of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act in as much as an investigation was already initiated against them by DGGI on the very same issue that was raised before the Authority for Advance Ruling. We therefore hold that the order of the lower Authority is void ab initio as it was vitiated by the provisions of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.