https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776932 AAR refused the applicant's rectification request, finding no error apparent on the face of the record under s.102. The applicant's proposed addition concerning classification of body-building services on a chassis owned by an unregistered customer was deemed redundant and already reflected in the original advance ruling. Because no mistake was apparent, the AAR held the rectification application liable for rejection under s.98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:35:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776932 AAR refused the applicant's rectification request, finding no error apparent on the face of the record under s.102. The applicant's proposed addition concerning classification of body-building services on a chassis owned by an unregistered customer was deemed redundant and already reflected in the original advance ruling. Because no mistake was apparent, the AAR held the rectification application liable for rejection under s.98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017. Case-Laws GST Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776932