Timing mismatch in income recognition requires verification whether receipts were already taxed in an earlier year; matter remitted for fresh examinat...
FOB transaction value and export incentives: customs valuation cannot override contractual export benefits or support confiscation without valid proof...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
