https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781291 The HC quashed the refusal (Ext.P5) to entertain the advance ruling application and directed the authority to reconsider Ext.P4 on merits, holding that Ext.P3 - a prior proceeding closed for remittance of tax - did not decide the legal questions on taxability and therefore could not justify declining jurisdiction under s.98(2) proviso of the CGST Act. The court found no other pending or decided proceedings touching the issues raised and required the authority to decide the application de hors Ext.P3 and on its substantive merits. en-us Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2025 08:14:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781291 The HC quashed the refusal (Ext.P5) to entertain the advance ruling application and directed the authority to reconsider Ext.P4 on merits, holding that Ext.P3 - a prior proceeding closed for remittance of tax - did not decide the legal questions on taxability and therefore could not justify declining jurisdiction under s.98(2) proviso of the CGST Act. The court found no other pending or decided proceedings touching the issues raised and required the authority to decide the application de hors Ext.P3 and on its substantive merits. Case-Laws GST Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781291