Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Advance Authority Ruling — When investigations are already going -- The petitioner prayed for writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the AAR as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same. The petitioner sought advance ruling as to whether the coaching/training for students fall within the wider meaning of the term ‘education’ and in relation to education and other related aspects. The AAR vide order dated 05.03.2020 ruled that the applicant was not eligible for the exemption under Entry No.66(a) of Notification No.12/2017-CT(Rate). The petitioner filed appeal before the AAAR, who on 28.09.2020 dismissed the Appeal. The counsel for petitioner submitted that the GST has already cancelled the registration and further the DGGI had called for certain documents, which were submitted to them. Since the Authority was already made known that the investigation is pending against the petitioner, the authority ought not to have admitted his application, as they are against the spirit of the proviso to Section 98(2) of the Act. The court observed that any proceedings referred to in Section 98(2) proviso encompasses within it the investigation and if by the date of filing of the application, already such proceedings were commenced, the ARA shall not admit the application inviting advance ruling. The order dated 05.03.2020 is vitiated by law. This fact was brought to the notice of the appellate authority in the grounds of appeal. Though the said ground is mentioned, unfortunately, the appellate authority has not given its finding on the said ground raised by the petitioner.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 05.03.2020 and order dated 28.09.2020 and the petitioner is given liberty to appear before the appropriate authority and submit his explanation and the said authority shall consider and proceed in accordance with law.