Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
AAAR declined to rule on the exemption claim for dredging and desilting services because the same transaction and period were already covered by a notice and adjudication order under section 73. It held that deciding the exemption issue in the advance ruling appeal could prejudice the statutory remedies available against that order, so judicial propriety required restraint. The Authority therefore left all substantive questions open, including the claimed exemption under Entry 3 or 3A, for determination in the appropriate appellate proceedings arising from the adjudication order.
AAAR declined to rule on the exemption claim for dredging and desilting services because the same transaction and period were already covered by a notice and adjudication order under section 73. It held that deciding the exemption issue in the advance ruling appeal could prejudice the statutory remedies available against that order, so judicial propriety required restraint. The Authority therefore left all substantive questions open, including the claimed exemption under Entry 3 or 3A, for determination in the appropriate appellate proceedings arising from the adjudication order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.