Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
An advance ruling under the GST law is binding on the applicant, but that binding effect does not bar High Court review under Article 226 on limited grounds such as jurisdictional error, error of law, breach of natural justice or perversity; such challenges to advance rulings should be listed before the Division Bench, not a Single Judge. On classification, the Court held that retaining the impugned view on cut tobacco would create unequal tax treatment for similarly placed manufacturers producing the same product, contrary to the equality principle. The advance rulings and the challenged order were set aside, and the writ appeal was allowed.
An advance ruling under the GST law is binding on the applicant, but that binding effect does not bar High Court review under Article 226 on limited grounds such as jurisdictional error, error of law, breach of natural justice or perversity; such challenges to advance rulings should be listed before the Division Bench, not a Single Judge. On classification, the Court held that retaining the impugned view on cut tobacco would create unequal tax treatment for similarly placed manufacturers producing the same product, contrary to the equality principle. The advance rulings and the challenged order were set aside, and the writ appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
