https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409675 An affected dealer falls within the expression "affected parties" under Section 67(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, so review, amendment or revocation of an advance ruling is not confined to a purely suo motu exercise by the authority. The provision permits such action for good and sufficient cause after hearing the affected parties, and the binding effect of a ruling supports that interpretation. Pendency of an appeal before the Tribunal was not treated as an absolute bar on the facts, particularly where disposal had been delayed. The review petition was held maintainable and the authority was directed to consider it on merits expeditiously. en-us Mon, 21 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:28:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409675 An affected dealer falls within the expression "affected parties" under Section 67(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, so review, amendment or revocation of an advance ruling is not confined to a purely suo motu exercise by the authority. The provision permits such action for good and sufficient cause after hearing the affected parties, and the binding effect of a ruling supports that interpretation. Pendency of an appeal before the Tribunal was not treated as an absolute bar on the facts, particularly where disposal had been delayed. The review petition was held maintainable and the authority was directed to consider it on merits expeditiously. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 21 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409675