https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257871 Rule 17 of the Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules, 1996 permits ex parte adjudication when the applicant does not appear, so an advance ruling application should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than dismissed for non-prosecution. The Karnataka HC held that a default dismissal was inconsistent with the object of advance rulings, which is to determine tax liability in advance and reduce litigation, and that the applicant was entitled to merits consideration. It also held that restoration could not be refused on a bare claim of contradictory affidavits without identifying the inconsistency or giving a reasoned basis for rejection. The impugned orders were quashed and the application restored for decision on merits. en-us Fri, 06 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 03 May 2015 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257871 Rule 17 of the Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules, 1996 permits ex parte adjudication when the applicant does not appear, so an advance ruling application should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than dismissed for non-prosecution. The Karnataka HC held that a default dismissal was inconsistent with the object of advance rulings, which is to determine tax liability in advance and reduce litigation, and that the applicant was entitled to merits consideration. It also held that restoration could not be refused on a bare claim of contradictory affidavits without identifying the inconsistency or giving a reasoned basis for rejection. The impugned orders were quashed and the application restored for decision on merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257871