Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Advance ruling jurisdiction under section 97 of the CGST Act does not extend to questions seeking guidance on the sufficiency of documentary evidence for proving that supplies to SEZ units or developers are for authorised operations. The applicant asked whether LOA or eligibility certificate evidence was enough for zero-rated treatment, or whether invoice endorsement by the Specified Officer was mandatory, but the Authority held these issues did not fall within any category listed in section 97(2), such as classification, notification applicability, time or value of supply, input tax credit, tax liability, registration, or whether an activity amounts to supply. It therefore declined to answer all three questions and left the merits of zero-rating and endorsement requirements unexamined.
Advance ruling jurisdiction under section 97 of the CGST Act does not extend to questions seeking guidance on the sufficiency of documentary evidence for proving that supplies to SEZ units or developers are for authorised operations. The applicant asked whether LOA or eligibility certificate evidence was enough for zero-rated treatment, or whether invoice endorsement by the Specified Officer was mandatory, but the Authority held these issues did not fall within any category listed in section 97(2), such as classification, notification applicability, time or value of supply, input tax credit, tax liability, registration, or whether an activity amounts to supply. It therefore declined to answer all three questions and left the merits of zero-rating and endorsement requirements unexamined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
