Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2541 to 2560 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dealt with GST recovery and appellate limitation issues arising from a rectified demand order. It held that an appeal dismissed only on delay was vitiated because the appellate authority had not examined whether time spent prosecuting a writ petition could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; the dismissal was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on that limited point, with merits and limitation left open. It also held that once the statutory appeal is filed and the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) is made, recovery of the balance demand remains stayed under Section 107(7), so the recovery order could not stand and was quashed.
The High Court dealt with GST recovery and appellate limitation issues arising from a rectified demand order. It held that an appeal dismissed only on delay was vitiated because the appellate authority had not examined whether time spent prosecuting a writ petition could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; the dismissal was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on that limited point, with merits and limitation left open. It also held that once the statutory appeal is filed and the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) is made, recovery of the balance demand remains stayed under Section 107(7), so the recovery order could not stand and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
