<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (6) TMI 429 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, UTTARAKHAND</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361602</link>
    <description>The SC rejected the advance ruling request regarding a DIPP notification&#039;s applicability. The Authority determined that the specific questions raised by the applicant fell outside the scope of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the application was not entertained, with the Joint Commissioner&#039;s report notwithstanding. The ruling emphasized strict interpretation of permissible advance ruling categories under GST legislation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 429 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, UTTARAKHAND</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361602</link>
      <description>The SC rejected the advance ruling request regarding a DIPP notification&#039;s applicability. The Authority determined that the specific questions raised by the applicant fell outside the scope of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the application was not entertained, with the Joint Commissioner&#039;s report notwithstanding. The ruling emphasized strict interpretation of permissible advance ruling categories under GST legislation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>