Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Advance ruling jurisdiction is barred where the question raised has already been conclusively decided by a Court, because the authority cannot re-adjudicate a settled issue or create conflicting classifications. Applying that principle, the Authority held that the classification of roasted areca nuts was already determined by the Madras High Court under Heading 2008, and the applicant showed no change in the goods' nature, composition or processing. Mere renumbering or substitution of the tariff sub-heading after later legislation did not create a fresh classification question. The application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected as covered by binding judicial precedent.
Advance ruling jurisdiction is barred where the question raised has already been conclusively decided by a Court, because the authority cannot re-adjudicate a settled issue or create conflicting classifications. Applying that principle, the Authority held that the classification of roasted areca nuts was already determined by the Madras High Court under Heading 2008, and the applicant showed no change in the goods' nature, composition or processing. Mere renumbering or substitution of the tariff sub-heading after later legislation did not create a fresh classification question. The application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected as covered by binding judicial precedent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
