Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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 High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale of land and buildings, based on the subsequent issuance of a pre-show cause notice dated 22 October 2024 by respondent No. 2 u/s 73(5) read with Rule 142(1-A) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court directed respondent No. 3 to dispose of the petitioners' application within three months, considering the provisions of Section 98(6) requiring the authority to pronounce the advance ruling within 90 days of receiving the application. The Court observed that if the advance ruling authority rules in favor of the petitioners, such ruling will bind not only respondent No. 2 but also the petitioners, as per Section 103(1). However, the Court cautioned against prematurely rushing to the Court, bypassing alternate remedies, before the authorities have an opportunity to examine the cause and make a decision.
The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale of land and buildings, based on the subsequent issuance of a pre-show cause notice dated 22 October 2024 by respondent No. 2 u/s 73(5) read with Rule 142(1-A) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court directed respondent No. 3 to dispose of the petitioners' application within three months, considering the provisions of Section 98(6) requiring the authority to pronounce the advance ruling within 90 days of receiving the application. The Court observed that if the advance ruling authority rules in favor of the petitioners, such ruling will bind not only respondent No. 2 but also the petitioners, as per Section 103(1). However, the Court cautioned against prematurely rushing to the Court, bypassing alternate remedies, before the authorities have an opportunity to examine the cause and make a decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
