The appeal filed against the non-admittance of the application for advance ruling is not maintainable in as much as the impugned order is not an appealable order under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Maintainability of application— In the instant appeal, the Appellant is aggrieved by the grounds on which the lower Authority has refused to admit the application for advance ruling which is that, the question on which the ruling was sought is a matter that is being investigated by the Directorate of GST Intelligence and hence the application cannot be admitted in terms of the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
The statement recorded by the DGSTI pursuant to the summons issued, deals mainly with the classification and rate of tax of the product “Flavoured Milk”. Therefore, we agree with the decision taken by the lower Authority that the application for advance ruling is inadmissible in terms of the 1st proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
Held that— we hold that the appeal filed against the non-admittance of the application for advance ruling is not maintainable in as much as the impugned order is not an appealable order under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The appeal filed against the non-admittance of the application for advance ruling is not maintainable in as much as the impugned order is not an appealable order under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Maintainability of application— In the instant appeal, the Appellant is aggrieved by the grounds on which the lower Authority has refused to admit the application for advance ruling which is that, the question on which the ruling was sought is a matter that is being investigated by the Directorate of GST Intelligence and hence the application cannot be admitted in terms of the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
The statement recorded by the DGSTI pursuant to the summons issued, deals mainly with the classification and rate of tax of the product “Flavoured Milk”. Therefore, we agree with the decision taken by the lower Authority that the application for advance ruling is inadmissible in terms of the 1st proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
Held that— we hold that the appeal filed against the non-admittance of the application for advance ruling is not maintainable in as much as the impugned order is not an appealable order under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017.