Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
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.
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.