Case Details: Murali Pharmacy, In re - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 703 (AAR - TAMILNADU)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Thiyagarajan & B. Suseel Kumar, Member
Facts of the Case
The applicant, a proprietorship pharmacy under GST, sought clarity on GST liability. It submitted that it supplied medicines and medical items and continued registration after the threshold for goods was enhanced, claiming exemption. Prior to the application, the Department of Revenue initiated scrutiny of turnover reported in GSTR-1 and issued ASMT-10 seeking an explanation for non-payment of GST. The scrutiny concluded with DRC-07 orders confirming demands for all years. The matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).
AAR Held
The AAR held that the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, read with Section 97, bars admission of an application where the same question is pending or has already been adjudicated. It was observed that the scrutiny and assessment proceedings, which culminated in DRC-07 orders confirming GST demands, had already addressed the identical question of liability under the claimed threshold exemption. The AAR noted that, since the proceedings had commenced and were adjudicated before the filing of the advance ruling application, the application was not maintainable.
The post AAR Rejects GST Advance Ruling as Liability Already Adjudicated in Scrutiny appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
