Odisha AAR Holds Advance Ruling Application Not Admissible Where Same Issue Is Pending Before High Court Under Section 98(2) CGST Act

Background:
The applicant, M/s Reliable Security and Intelligence Services (Orissa) Private Limited, sought an advance ruling from the Odisha Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) regarding the applicability of GST exemption under Sl. No. 03 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 for manpower supply services provided to certain government entities. The applicant contended that the recipient departments had refused to pay GST and requested clarification on the exemption status.

Jurisdictional Authority’s Submission:
The jurisdictional tax authority informed the AAR that a show cause notice had previously been issued to the applicant for non-payment of GST, covering the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21. The demand was confirmed by an Order-in-Original, and the applicant subsequently filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, which was still pending at the time of the advance ruling application.

Legal Issue and Statutory Bar:
The AAR examined the maintainability of the application in light of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. This provision prohibits the Authority from admitting an application for advance ruling if the same question is already pending or has been decided in any proceedings involving the applicant under the Act. The AAR noted that the issue raised in the application had already been adjudicated by the proper officer and was currently under challenge before the High Court.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
The AAR emphasized that the statutory bar under Section 98(2) is clear and absolute in such circumstances. Since the question regarding the GST exemption for the applicant’s services was already the subject of appellate proceedings before the High Court, the Authority was precluded from admitting the application for advance ruling.

Conclusion:
Accordingly, the Odisha AAR ruled that the application for advance ruling was not admissible and rejected it on the ground that the same issue was pending in appellate proceedings under the CGST Act. The order underscores the mandatory nature of Section 98(2) and the limited jurisdiction of the AAR when parallel proceedings are ongoing.