1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Commissioner's limitation rejection overturned as appeal filed within prescribed period after service</h1> The Bombay HC set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order rejecting petitioner's appeal on limitation grounds. The Court found the appeal was filed ... Rejection of petitioner’s appeal on the ground of bar of limitation - HELD THAT:- The record shows that the Order-in-Original dated 29 December 2022 was served upon the petitioner only on 9 March 2023. The appeal was filed on 29 March 2023. Thus, from the date of service of the order and the date of knowledge of the contents of the order, the appeal was well within the prescribed period of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore not justified in rejecting the appeal by invoking the bar of limitation. On this short ground, the impugned order dated 29 January 2024 set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal of the petitioner’s appeal in accordance with law and on its own merits as expeditiously as possible. Petition allowed by way of remand. The Bombay High Court, through M.S. Sonak, J., heard a petition challenging the Order-in-Original dated 29 December 2022 and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 29 January 2024, which rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground of bar of limitation. The Court noted that the impugned order was served on the petitioner on 9 March 2023, and the appeal was filed on 29 March 2023, thus within the prescribed limitation period. Holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) was 'not justified in rejecting the appeal by invoking the bar of limitation,' the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for disposal on merits 'as expeditiously as possible.'The Court also referred to precedents-Adv. Pooja Patil v. Deputy Commissioner & Ors. (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2857) and Ish Kiran Jain v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 25269 of 2023)-which held that no service tax can be imposed on practising advocates. It directed the Appellate Authority to consider these decisions while hearing the appeal, leaving all contentions, including those of the respondents, open for determination.The rule was made absolute without costs, and leave was granted to amend the prayer clause regarding dates.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
