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...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant was required to deposit a total fee of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- CGST and Rs. 10,000/- HGST) as a statutory precondition for filing an appeal against the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. However, the appellant paid only Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- CGST and Rs. 5000/- HGST), which is not the required fee. Consequently, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable in terms of Section 100(3) of the GST law for want of deposition of the requisite fee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The appellant was required to deposit a total fee of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- CGST and Rs. 10,000/- HGST) as a statutory precondition for filing an appeal against the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. However, the appellant paid only Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- CGST and Rs. 5000/- HGST), which is not the required fee. Consequently, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable in terms of Section 100(3) of the GST law for want of deposition of the requisite fee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
