Keeping in view the fact that the principles of natural justice and fair play has been violated, alternative remedy will not be a bar in the present case, the matter is remitted back to the Authority for Advance Ruling.
Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017— Order passed by AAR - The petitioner challenged the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka AAR under Section 98(4) of the Act, 2017. The petitioner is engaged in the business for providing services for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste and for execution of the said purpose it has obtained land on lease from the Government of Karnataka. The petitioner sought an advance ruling as to whether term “other civil structure” used in the definition of ‘Plant and Machinery’ restricts the Landfilling pit from considering it as Plant and Machinery and thereby restricts the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 17(5)(d) of the Act”. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the competent authority before passing an order has referred the matter to the Principal Commissioner of Tax, Bangalore West Commissionerate, Bengaluru, and based on his report, this order was passed. This opinion/report was not given to the petitioner and therefore order is violative of the principles of natural justice. The respondent counsel submitted that order passed is an appealable order under Section 100 of the Act, 2017. The Court observed that in the present case principles of natural justice have certainly been violated.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 11.09.2020 and remitted back the matter to the Authority for Advance Ruling for fresh decision, within a period of 45 days. The petitioner shall appear before the Authority for Advance Ruling on 26.04.2021.
Keeping in view the fact that the principles of natural justice and fair play has been violated, alternative remedy will not be a bar in the present case, the matter is remitted back to the Authority for Advance Ruling.
Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017— Order passed by AAR - The petitioner challenged the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka AAR under Section 98(4) of the Act, 2017. The petitioner is engaged in the business for providing services for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste and for execution of the said purpose it has obtained land on lease from the Government of Karnataka. The petitioner sought an advance ruling as to whether term “other civil structure” used in the definition of ‘Plant and Machinery’ restricts the Landfilling pit from considering it as Plant and Machinery and thereby restricts the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 17(5)(d) of the Act”. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the competent authority before passing an order has referred the matter to the Principal Commissioner of Tax, Bangalore West Commissionerate, Bengaluru, and based on his report, this order was passed. This opinion/report was not given to the petitioner and therefore order is violative of the principles of natural justice. The respondent counsel submitted that order passed is an appealable order under Section 100 of the Act, 2017. The Court observed that in the present case principles of natural justice have certainly been violated.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 11.09.2020 and remitted back the matter to the Authority for Advance Ruling for fresh decision, within a period of 45 days. The petitioner shall appear before the Authority for Advance Ruling on 26.04.2021.