AAR Rejects Application Barred by Section 98(2) Pending Proceedings Rule:

AAR rejects application under Section 98(2) as issue already pending in other proceedings
Parallel adjudication not permitted through advance ruling mechanism

AAR Rejects Application Barred by Section 98(2) Pending Proceedings Rule
M/s. Supreme Fireworks Factory, a manufacturer based in Sivakasi, moved an application before the Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) on 3 October 2025 in Form GST ARA-01. Through this application, the applicant sought clarity on certain GST-related obligations and procedural aspects. However, during scrutiny, the Authority noticed that the very issues raised in the application were not new they were already part of ongoing proceedings, or had been examined earlier under the GST law.
Taking note of this, the Authority referred to the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, which clearly bars admission of an advance ruling application where the same matter is pending or already decided in the applicant’s own case. After giving the applicant an opportunity to present its side, the Authority came to the conclusion that this legal restriction squarely applied. As a result, the application was held to be not maintainable at the outset itself, without going into the merits.
Central Issue: Whether an application for advance ruling can be entertained under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 when the same issue is already pending or has been decided in other proceedings involving the applicant.
Tribunal Decided: The Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling declined to admit the application and did not examine the questions on merits. It relied on the first proviso to Section 98(2), which limits the Authority’s jurisdiction in situations where the issue is already under consideration in other proceedings. The Authority made it clear that the advance ruling mechanism cannot be used as an alternative route when the same dispute is already being dealt with elsewhere.
Allowing such applications would effectively lead to parallel adjudication, which the law expressly prohibits. Accordingly, the application was rejected at the threshold. The order, signed by both the Central and State members, also informed the applicant that they could challenge this rejection before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling within 30 days.
To Read Full Order, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2160My Recent Articles
- ITAT Deletes Additions After Ex-Army Personnel Explains Bank Credits with EvidencePremium
- ITAT Allows Section 80P Deduction on Interest Earned from Co-operative Bank DepositsPremium
- ITAT Quashes Consequential Assessment After Section 263 Revision Order FailsPremium
- ITAT Restricts Addition to Commission on Accommodation Cash Deposit TransactionsPremium
- ITAT Grants Relief on BSNL VRS Compensation and Leave Encashment ExemptionPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








