https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469023 The ninety-day period for pronouncing an advance ruling under Section 98(6) of the CGST Act was treated as directory, not mandatory, because the statute does not state that delay makes the ruling void and no prejudice or denial of natural justice was shown. The objection to delay was therefore rejected. Permission charges, reinstatement charges, road cutting charges and ground rent charges levied by Goa PWD were held taxable under reverse charge, as the notification applies where services are supplied by the Central Government, State Government, Union territory or local authority to a business entity. The appellate authority also declined to expand the ruling into broader taxability questions not raised in the application. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2026 19:02:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469023 The ninety-day period for pronouncing an advance ruling under Section 98(6) of the CGST Act was treated as directory, not mandatory, because the statute does not state that delay makes the ruling void and no prejudice or denial of natural justice was shown. The objection to delay was therefore rejected. Permission charges, reinstatement charges, road cutting charges and ground rent charges levied by Goa PWD were held taxable under reverse charge, as the notification applies where services are supplied by the Central Government, State Government, Union territory or local authority to a business entity. The appellate authority also declined to expand the ruling into broader taxability questions not raised in the application. Case-Laws GST Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469023