Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For GST first appeals, limitation runs from the actual communication of the adjudication order to the assessee. Where the assessee states that date, a presumption arises in its favour and the Revenue must rebut it with cogent material; failure to do so makes dismissal of the appeal as time-barred unsustainable. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction could be invoked despite an alternate statutory remedy because the appellate authority had ignored binding precedent and failed to record an independent finding on limitation. The impugned appellate orders were quashed and the matters remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the governing law on effective communication and limitation.
For GST first appeals, limitation runs from the actual communication of the adjudication order to the assessee. Where the assessee states that date, a presumption arises in its favour and the Revenue must rebut it with cogent material; failure to do so makes dismissal of the appeal as time-barred unsustainable. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction could be invoked despite an alternate statutory remedy because the appellate authority had ignored binding precedent and failed to record an independent finding on limitation. The impugned appellate orders were quashed and the matters remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the governing law on effective communication and limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.