Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5001 to 5020 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A High Court considered preliminary objections to departmental appeals against an advance ruling and upheld their maintainability. It held that the 90-day period for passing the appellate order under Section 101(2) is directory, operating as an outer time limit and not a jurisdictional bar that nullifies the appeal on expiry. It also accepted the actual dates of communication for limitation purposes, found condonation competent where filed within the extended period, held that separate CGST and SGST officers had statutory appellate locus, and treated manual filing as a procedural issue not defeating the appeal. The Court further rejected estoppel and natural justice objections.
A High Court considered preliminary objections to departmental appeals against an advance ruling and upheld their maintainability. It held that the 90-day period for passing the appellate order under Section 101(2) is directory, operating as an outer time limit and not a jurisdictional bar that nullifies the appeal on expiry. It also accepted the actual dates of communication for limitation purposes, found condonation competent where filed within the extended period, held that separate CGST and SGST officers had statutory appellate locus, and treated manual filing as a procedural issue not defeating the appeal. The Court further rejected estoppel and natural justice objections.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
