Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The AAAR held that the time limit for passing an order u/s 101 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not mandatory, and the word 'shall' should be interpreted in an advisory manner to avoid denying the right of appeal. The appeals were filed within the statutory period and not barred by limitation. Manual filing of appeals is allowed u/r 107A of the CGST Rules, 2017. Both central and state GST authorities are proper authorities to file an appeal against an advance ruling. The appellant can revisit their stance taken before the AAR, and the principle of estoppel does not apply. The preliminary objections raised by the respondent were rejected, and the appeals were held maintainable to be decided on merits. The case pertains to the valuation of GTA services and inclusion of the value of diesel provided by the service recipient.
The AAAR held that the time limit for passing an order u/s 101 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not mandatory, and the word 'shall' should be interpreted in an advisory manner to avoid denying the right of appeal. The appeals were filed within the statutory period and not barred by limitation. Manual filing of appeals is allowed u/r 107A of the CGST Rules, 2017. Both central and state GST authorities are proper authorities to file an appeal against an advance ruling. The appellant can revisit their stance taken before the AAR, and the principle of estoppel does not apply. The preliminary objections raised by the respondent were rejected, and the appeals were held maintainable to be decided on merits. The case pertains to the valuation of GTA services and inclusion of the value of diesel provided by the service recipient.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
