The authority refused to admit an advance ruling application as the classification of roasted areca nuts had already been decided by a High Court. The ruling highlights the statutory bar under Section 28-I(2) when issues are previously adjudicated.
The authority declined to rule on tariff classification as a similar matter was pending before the High Court. It held that Section 28-I bars decisions in such cases. The applicant may reapply after final adjudication.
The authority examined whether warehousing scheme applicability can be decided under advance ruling. It held that such procedural issues fall outside Section 28H. The application was rejected as not maintainable.
The Court examined whether ITC can be denied when the supplier fails to deposit tax. It upheld the provision, ruling that ITC depends on actual tax payment to the Government. The key takeaway is that purchaser compliance alone is insufficient without supplier tax remittance.
The authority examined whether automatic service charges violate consumer rights. It ruled that default billing of such charges is coercive and constitutes an unfair trade practice. The case reinforces that service charges must remain voluntary.
The issue involved dismissal of appeal due to delay and non-appearance. The tribunal condoned the delay citing medical reasons and remanded the matter for fresh assessment, imposing cost for non-compliance.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that ITC reversals on unsold inventory were not adequately examined. It directed fresh investigation to verify the impact on profiteering calculations and ensure proper assessment.
The issue was delay in filing appeal due to alleged non-service of notice. The court allowed appeal filing with delay condonation and granted interim protection from recovery.
The issue involved challenging a GST order through writ instead of appeal. The court allowed withdrawal and permitted filing appeal with possible condonation of delay.
The issue was addition of deemed dividend under search assessment. The tribunal held that without incriminating material, additions in completed assessments are unsustainable.
