https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383373 The court ruled that the proper officer cannot demand additional documents beyond those specified in Rule 8(4) under Rule 9(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It found the notice seeking additional information partially invalid as it requested documents not required by Rule 8(4). The court upheld the rejection of the registration application but allowed for a fresh application without consideration of the previous reasons. Deemed registration was denied as no action was taken within the specified period. Documents proving ownership were deemed necessary, but those for authorization to deal in lottery services were not required under Rule 8(4). The court directed reconsideration of the application without demanding additional documents beyond Rule 8(4) specifications. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383373 The court ruled that the proper officer cannot demand additional documents beyond those specified in Rule 8(4) under Rule 9(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It found the notice seeking additional information partially invalid as it requested documents not required by Rule 8(4). The court upheld the rejection of the registration application but allowed for a fresh application without consideration of the previous reasons. Deemed registration was denied as no action was taken within the specified period. Documents proving ownership were deemed necessary, but those for authorization to deal in lottery services were not required under Rule 8(4). The court directed reconsideration of the application without demanding additional documents beyond Rule 8(4) specifications. Case-Laws GST Fri, 19 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383373