https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421976 The Gujarat HC examined the constitutional validity of Section 103(1)(b) of the GST Acts regarding binding nature of advance ruling appellate orders on subordinate authorities. The case involved classification of papad products under exemption notification Entry No.96 and validity of proceedings under Section 74. The Appellate Authority determined that the products were market-known as fryums rather than papad, affecting their classification. Petitioners challenged Section 103(1)(b) as manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The HC issued notice to respondents returnable on 15.06.2022, indicating the matter remains pending adjudication. en-us Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 13:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421976 The Gujarat HC examined the constitutional validity of Section 103(1)(b) of the GST Acts regarding binding nature of advance ruling appellate orders on subordinate authorities. The case involved classification of papad products under exemption notification Entry No.96 and validity of proceedings under Section 74. The Appellate Authority determined that the products were market-known as fryums rather than papad, affecting their classification. Petitioners challenged Section 103(1)(b) as manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The HC issued notice to respondents returnable on 15.06.2022, indicating the matter remains pending adjudication. Case-Laws GST Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421976