https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391475 The article notes that a constitutional challenge to paragraph 2 of Schedule II read with Sections 7 and 9 of the CGST Act and the Goa GST Act was treated as covered by an earlier binding decision, so no separate relief was warranted and the challenge failed. It also records that a writ challenge to the Advance Ruling Authority and Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling orders was not entertained while proceedings under Section 102 of the CGST Act were pending, with the question of locus standi left open and liberty preserved to file a fresh petition if the pending statutory process did not provide relief. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Mar 2025 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391475 The article notes that a constitutional challenge to paragraph 2 of Schedule II read with Sections 7 and 9 of the CGST Act and the Goa GST Act was treated as covered by an earlier binding decision, so no separate relief was warranted and the challenge failed. It also records that a writ challenge to the Advance Ruling Authority and Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling orders was not entertained while proceedings under Section 102 of the CGST Act were pending, with the question of locus standi left open and liberty preserved to file a fresh petition if the pending statutory process did not provide relief. Case-Laws GST Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391475