Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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.