Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
