2025 (8) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., AGP, for the Respondent No. 2-State. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M S Sonak, J) 1. Heard Mr Raichandani along with Ms Dhanistha Kawale for the Petitioner, Ms Neeta Masurkar for the Respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Mr Milind More, learned Additional Government Pleader along with Mr Himanshu Takke, learned AGP for the Respondent-State. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve not even been considered, and such non- consideration amounts to non-application of mind. 5. Ms Masurkar submitted that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy before the GST Tribunal. She submitted that the Petitioner had relied upon the Advance Ruling Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly held that such advance ruling shall be binding only on the persons referred to in Sectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the discussion in paragraphs 7.1 to 7.4, it is apparent that the Commissioner (Appeals) has addressed only one of the grounds, namely the ground based on the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority. None of the other grounds on merits have even been adverted to, much less considered or evaluated. This omission does suggest non- application of mind or, in any event, indicates that the Petitioner's....