Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.