Remand for fresh advance ruling where appeal introduced materially different facts and the original record was insufficient.

Where an appeal introduces a factual matrix materially different from the facts placed before the original advance ruling authority, the appellate authority cannot properly test the correctness of the ruling on the existing record. The appropriate course is remand for fresh adjudication on the corrected factual foundation, with observance of natural justice. The matter was therefore sent back to the original authority for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be finally decided on a factual basis materially different from the facts placed before the original advance ruling authority, and whether the matter had to be remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The appellant's appeal and submissions at the hearing introduced a factual matrix that was materially different from the facts stated before the original authority, including the nature of the business relationship and the existence of scheme documents governing incentives. In view of this divergence, the appellate authority found that it could not properly adjudicate the correctness of the original ruling on the existing record. The appropriate course was to send the matter back to the original authority so that the controversy could be examined afresh on the corrected factual foundation, with observance of natural justice.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original advance ruling authority for fresh adjudication.

---