Advance Ruling— The present appeal has been filed against the Advance Ruling order.
The appellant has raised the following questions for advance ruling—
“Whether the medicines, consumables and implants used in the course of providing health care services to in-patients for diagnosis or treatment for patients opting with or without packages along with allied services i.e. (room rent/food/doctor fees etc.) provided by hospital would be considered as Composite Supply' and accordingly eligible for exemption under the category “Health Care Services “?”
he Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling ruled as follows:-
“The medicines, consumables and implants used in the course of providing health care services to in-patients for diagnosis or treatment for patient opting with or without packages along with allied services i.e. (room rent/food/doctor fees etc.) provided by hospital is a “Composite Supply “. Supply of inpatient health care services by the applicant hospital as defined in Para 2(zg) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended, is exempted from CGST as per Sl.No. 74 of the above notification.”
After pronouncing above ruling, the GAAR received a letter F.No. CST/ ENFORCEMENT/SHALBY/ADVANCE RULING/20-21 /O.NO. 5376 dated 06.03.2021 from the Additional Commissioner of State Tax, stating that proceeding is already pending in the given case before application is, filed with Authority of Advance Ruling.
The main issue to be decided is whether the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/31/2021 38 TAXLOK.COM 130 dated 19.07.2021 pronounced by GAAR declaring its Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/11/2021 32 TAXLOK.COM 143 dated 20.01.2021 void ab-initio in terms of Section 104 of CGST Act, 2017 is legally correct.
The appellant, in their grounds of appeal, stressed on the point that proviso to Section 98(2) of CGST Act 2017 will be applicable only when a show cause notice is issued or order is passed on the question sought and the term 'proceedings' does not cover any/all steps taken by department and therefore cannot include mere inquiry/investigation initiated by investigating agencies which are merely empowered to investigate and issue show cause notice. The term proceeding is a very comprehensive term and generally speaking means a prescribed course of action for enforcing legal right and hence it necessarily comprises the requisite steps by which judicial action is invoked.
There can be no doubt that the appellant had indeed not declared/ mis-declared the fact of initiation of proceedings clearly evidenced by GST DRC-01A Part A issued in this case and therefore this is also covered under the scope of the term 'suppression' as defined above. It was encumbent upon the appellant while making application for Advance Ruling, to have declared the true and complete facts, given the provisions of the GST law, in particular Sections 98(2) and 104 of the CGST Act, 2017. We, therefore hold that invocation of Section 104 of CGST Act by the GAAR and declaring advance ruling dated 20.01.2021 void ab initio is legal.
Held that— This authority reject the appeal filed by appellant M/s Shalby Limited Ltd and uphold the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/31/2021 38 TAXLOK.COM 130 dated 19.07.2021 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling.