Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The AAR denied the rectification application, holding that rectification under Section 102 is permissible only for errors apparent on the face of the record and that no such error existed. The applicant sought insertion of a provision characterising body-building activity performed on a chassis owned by an unregistered customer as supply of services under SI No. 26(iv) / heading 998881 read with Schedule II; the AAR found the requested text redundant because the substance of that contention had already been addressed in the advance ruling. Consequently, the rectification petition was rejected as untenable under Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.