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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
