Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.