Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The applicant's advance ruling application seeking nil rate of GST on stamp duty and registration fees paid for registering a mining lease deed is inadmissible. The matter is already under audit proceedings initiated by the Audit Commissionerate demanding GST payment. As per Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, an advance ruling cannot be sought on issues already pending in audit. The Madras High Court judgment in ABT Limited case upheld that during GST audit u/s 65, if tax non-payment or wrong ITC utilization is found, action u/ss 73 or 74 can be initiated u/s 65(7). Since the audit is a valid proceeding covered u/s 98(2), the applicant's appeal against the advance ruling is liable to be rejected.
The applicant's advance ruling application seeking nil rate of GST on stamp duty and registration fees paid for registering a mining lease deed is inadmissible. The matter is already under audit proceedings initiated by the Audit Commissionerate demanding GST payment. As per Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, an advance ruling cannot be sought on issues already pending in audit. The Madras High Court judgment in ABT Limited case upheld that during GST audit u/s 65, if tax non-payment or wrong ITC utilization is found, action u/ss 73 or 74 can be initiated u/s 65(7). Since the audit is a valid proceeding covered u/s 98(2), the applicant's appeal against the advance ruling is liable to be rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.