Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
