Sponsored
FINANCE SECRETARIAT
NOTIFICATION
No. FD 47 CSL 2017, Bengaluru, dated: 25.04.2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 99 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Karnataka Act 27 of 2017), the Government of Karnataka hereby constitutes Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for Goods and Services Tax consisting of –
1) The Principal Chief Commissioner, Bengaluru, GST 8v CX Zone, Bengaluru; and
2) The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka), Bengaluru.
for hearing Appeals against the advance ruling pronounced by the Advance Ruling Authority.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka,
NETRAPRABHA M. DHAYAPULE
Under Secretary to Government (I/c),
Finance Department [CT-1
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Out of FAQs, selected :
“Q 19. Whether Appeal can be filed before High Court or Supreme Court against the ruling of Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings?
Ans The CGST /SGST Act do not provide for any appeal against the ruling of Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings. Thus no further appeals lie and the ruling shall be binding on the applicant as well as the jurisdictional officer in respect of applicant. However, WRIT JURISDICTION MAY LIE BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT.”
(FONT supplied)
NOTEs :
I . Subject to anyone concerned making a detailed study, for an independent understanding and insight into, going by own memory, the scheme of the enactments governing AAR under the IT Act ( CHAPTER XIX – B- sec 245 N to sec 245 V) is, in material respects, at variance, in comparison to the corresponding Authority under the GST regime.
For a critical study of the referred scheme , in force, under the IT Act, attention may be invited to the published articles, @ –
(2008) 166 TAXMANN 72; and
(2007) 295 ITR 17,
-in which the related aspect of tax treaty implications / concepts of, inter alia, ‘ Resident’ and ‘Avoidance of Tax’, have been discussed.
II. In the context, a conscious note of the amendment recently made calls for a mention; reference is to the insertion of clause (iv) in sec 245 N, enlarging the jurisdiction /powers of the AAR to transactions covered within the mischief of CHAPTER X B (GAAR). No need to add, – the ramifications / consequences of such an amendment would not be known until further developments / specific AAR cases come to be reported.
III. To recall offhand, there has been a controversy raised and discussed, in certain limited circles, – for instance, through the ICL Blogs, regarding the powers of HC to interfere with the jurisdiction of AAR , if that were to be regarded as a subordinate ‘tribunal’ , in the hierarchy, hence coming within the supervisory powers of court.
courtesy
Over to law pundits, at large, for insight / deliberation !