Case Title | M/s Mother Earth Environ Tech Private Limited vs Authority for Advance Ruling Bengaluru , Local Goods & Service Ramanagara . |
Court | Karnataka High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Satish Chandra Sharma & Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty |
Citation | 2021 (4) GSTPanacea 24 HC Karnataka |
Judgement Date | 07-April-2021 |
Council for Petitioner | K.J.Kamath |
Council for Respondent | Vikram A Huigol |
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma & Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty has held that order passed by the Authority for Advanced Ruling violated the principles of natural justice and fair play.
FACTS OF THE CASE
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 and developed Landfilling pit for processing and disposal of hazardous waste
As the petitioner was having some confusion in respect of payment of GST, filed an application on 09.03.2020 posing a specific question “whether the 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 GST Act” and thereafter applied for an advance ruling on the aforesaid subject
Based upon the report submitted by the Principal Commissioner of the Central Tax, an order has been passed on 11.09.2020 by the Authority for Advance Ruling
The petitioner argued before this Court that so called opinion/report of the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax was not given to the petitioner at any point of time and the order is based on the aforesaid report is violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that the order passed by the Authority for Advanced Ruling and in the present case principles of natural justice and fair play have certainly been violated as the report of the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax was never given to the petitioner at any point of time.
The petitioner has now obtained a detailed report submitted by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax from the Right to Information Act and he is having the aforesaid report. Alternative remedy will not be a bar in the present case, the matter is remitted back to the Authority for Advance Ruling. The order dated 11.09.2020 is set aside.
The petitioner shall be free to argue the matter afresh taking into account the report submitted by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax as the same is already in his possession. The Authority for Advance Ruling shall be free to pass appropriate order in accordance with law without being influenced by its own earlier order within a period of 45 days from today.
Thus With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
As Advance Ruling Order was passed by the Authority violated principles of natural justice and fair play. The petitioner shall be free to argue the matter and The Authority for Advance Ruling shall be free to pass appropriate order in accordance with law without being influenced by its own earlier order.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
karnataka High Court