Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AAR held that the applicant's queries regarding the sufficiency of delivery challans and e-way bills, ancillary documents required during interstate movement of machinery, and practical difficulties with GST border officers are procedural and compliance-related and do not fall within the seven subject-matters enumerated in section 97(2) of the CGST/APGST Act. The AAR concluded that advance ruling jurisdiction under sections 95 and 97 is limited to specified questions (e.g., classification, taxability, rate, liability, ITC) and does not extend to general documentary or transit procedures. Consequently, the application was adjudged non-maintainable and was rejected as inadmissible under section 97(2) of the Act.
AAR held that the applicant's queries regarding the sufficiency of delivery challans and e-way bills, ancillary documents required during interstate movement of machinery, and practical difficulties with GST border officers are procedural and compliance-related and do not fall within the seven subject-matters enumerated in section 97(2) of the CGST/APGST Act. The AAR concluded that advance ruling jurisdiction under sections 95 and 97 is limited to specified questions (e.g., classification, taxability, rate, liability, ITC) and does not extend to general documentary or transit procedures. Consequently, the application was adjudged non-maintainable and was rejected as inadmissible under section 97(2) of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.