https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301207 The Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (MAAR) that the Advance Ruling application was not maintainable under Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Appellant's request for classification of the proposed product, "Glass Reinforced Gypsum Board," and eligibility for a concessional rate was not addressed on merits due to the maintainability issue. The Appellate Authority advised the Appellant to file a fresh application with samples to seek a proper ruling on the classification issue. en-us Thu, 12 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Mar 2022 08:12:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301207 The Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (MAAR) that the Advance Ruling application was not maintainable under Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Appellant's request for classification of the proposed product, "Glass Reinforced Gypsum Board," and eligibility for a concessional rate was not addressed on merits due to the maintainability issue. The Appellate Authority advised the Appellant to file a fresh application with samples to seek a proper ruling on the classification issue. Case-Laws GST Thu, 12 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301207