The Authority held that questions relating to GST search, seizure, confiscation, and penalties are not covered under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. As such matters fall outside advance ruling jurisdiction, the application was rejected.
In re Bhagvan Tirthani (GST AAR Rajasthan) The Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling considered an application filed by an unregistered applicant seeking rulings under Section 97(2)(e) and (f) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 regarding tax liability and requirement of registration . The applicant submitted that his turnover was below the GST registration threshold and alleged […]
Rajasthan AAR ruled that a tailing dam used for hazardous waste disposal is an immovable civil structure, not plant and machinery. ITC on works contract and related goods was held to be blocked under Section 17(5)(c) and (d).
The Authority determined correct HSN classifications for UV printed acrylic photo frames, wall clocks, and MDF keychains, emphasizing tariff notes and material-based classification.
ITAT Indore held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment proceedings where no advance tax obligation arises. The dismissal of appeal without examining merits was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Raipur held that Section 249(4)(b) applies only where advance tax was legally payable. In absence of taxable income and advance tax liability, dismissal of appeal was set aside and matter restored for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that once the NCLT accepts a Resolution Plan and orders liquidation, the Revenue’s pending service tax appeal cannot survive and stands abated.
The Court quashed the TPO’s order after finding that copies of agreements relied upon were not supplied, holding that denial of such documents violated the taxpayer’s right to defend.
The Court directed refund of recovered GST demand, holding that recovery should not continue once appeal intention was intimated under Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST, subject to retention of statutory pre-deposit.
The Tribunal held that transfer took place in 2000 upon execution of a registered development agreement and receipt of full consideration, not in 2008 when the sale deed was executed.
