Case Details: Mahendra Singh vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax (2025) 35 Centax 41 (M.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vivek Rusia & Jai Kumar Pillai, JJ.
- Shri Amit Dubey, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Sudeep Bhargava, Dy. Adv. General, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a proprietor of a pan shop registered under the CGST Act and the Madhya Pradesh GST Act, had opted for the composition scheme under Section 10 of the CGST Act. Separately, another assessee engaged in trading of pan masala, tobacco products, and ice cream obtained an advance ruling under holding that the composition scheme was not available under Section 10(2)(b) and (e). Relying on that ruling, the Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice under Section 74 demanding tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner contended that the advance ruling given in another case could not apply to an independent registration. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
High Court Held
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that, under Section 103 of the CGST Act, an advance ruling binds only the applicant and jurisdictional officers concerned in that case. It was observed that the petitioner’s independent GST registration and separate business entity impeded the application of the ruling obtained by another assessee. It is directed that the case be examined independently on its own merits and not on the basis of such a ruling. Accordingly, the show cause notice and resultant order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
