https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442317 The AAR Tamil Nadu rejected an advance ruling application due to non-disclosure of ongoing proceedings. The applicant failed to reveal that DGGI Chennai Zonal Unit was conducting investigations under Section 70 of CGST Act. The AAR held that the first proviso to Section 98(2) covers any proceedings under the Act, including Section 70 investigations. Since proceedings were pending against the applicant on the date of filing the advance ruling application, it was liable for rejection under the first proviso to Section 98(2). en-us Mon, 19 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2025 17:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442317 The AAR Tamil Nadu rejected an advance ruling application due to non-disclosure of ongoing proceedings. The applicant failed to reveal that DGGI Chennai Zonal Unit was conducting investigations under Section 70 of CGST Act. The AAR held that the first proviso to Section 98(2) covers any proceedings under the Act, including Section 70 investigations. Since proceedings were pending against the applicant on the date of filing the advance ruling application, it was liable for rejection under the first proviso to Section 98(2). Case-Laws GST Mon, 19 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442317