Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
