Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Advance ruling was barred where the same input tax credit question was already pending in enforcement proceedings against the applicant. The Authority held that, under the proviso to section 98(2), an advance ruling cannot be admitted on a question already pending in proceedings under the Act in the applicant's case. Because the jurisdictional authority had already initiated action on admissibility of input tax credit for construction of the hotel building, and the applicant did not dispute that fact, the application was rejected without any ruling on the merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.