https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211764 The Authority for Advance Rulings rejected applications filed by subsidiaries of a Government company invoking Section 96(C) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Authority exercised discretion under Section 96D(2) to prevent conflicting decisions, emphasizing the need for consistency in rulings. The applications were deemed inadmissible to avoid incompatible outcomes on identical questions pending before different authorities. The decision underscored the importance of upholding the spirit of advance ruling provisions and ensuring coherence in decisions across various forums. en-us Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211764 The Authority for Advance Rulings rejected applications filed by subsidiaries of a Government company invoking Section 96(C) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Authority exercised discretion under Section 96D(2) to prevent conflicting decisions, emphasizing the need for consistency in rulings. The applications were deemed inadmissible to avoid incompatible outcomes on identical questions pending before different authorities. The decision underscored the importance of upholding the spirit of advance ruling provisions and ensuring coherence in decisions across various forums. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211764