Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided by Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Sumathi Jagadam, addressed a petition challenging an assessment order dated 04.02.2025 for the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner argued that although the order bears the date 04.02.2025, it was actually digitally signed on 12.02.2025, thus exceeding the five-year limitation period prescribed under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, which expired on 07.02.2025. The petitioner relied on the Document Identification Number (DIN) affixed to the order-DIN3712022541522-where the digits "37120225" indicate the order was passed in Andhra Pradesh on 12.02.2025, confirming the delay. The petitioner contended that "once a part of the order is beyond limitation," the entire order should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh proceedings. The Court granted a stay on all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order and directed the respondent to file a counter-affidavit before the next hearing.