https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767645 A clarification application cannot be used to reopen a clear and speaking order or to introduce a fresh dispute requiring new adjudication. The HC held that the earlier order was self-explanatory and unambiguous, having quashed the impugned demand to the extent it conflicted with Section 173 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 and the 101st Constitutional Amendment, while directing refund only of amounts described as advertisement tax for the relevant period. Because the order already stated what was decided and what was not decided, and the new contention concerned matters not raised at the original hearing, no further clarification was warranted. The application was therefore rejected as not maintainable for the purpose sought. en-us Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:25:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767645 A clarification application cannot be used to reopen a clear and speaking order or to introduce a fresh dispute requiring new adjudication. The HC held that the earlier order was self-explanatory and unambiguous, having quashed the impugned demand to the extent it conflicted with Section 173 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 and the 101st Constitutional Amendment, while directing refund only of amounts described as advertisement tax for the relevant period. Because the order already stated what was decided and what was not decided, and the new contention concerned matters not raised at the original hearing, no further clarification was warranted. The application was therefore rejected as not maintainable for the purpose sought. Case-Laws GST Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767645