Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The Court held that time spent bona fide pursuing GST appellate relief before a wrong forum could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and that this question was distinct from condonation under Section 5. It distinguished authorities on Section 5 as dealing with self-contained special limitation schemes, not exclusion of time under Section 14. Applying the principle in Prakash Medical Stores, the Court found the petitioner had genuinely pursued the appeal before the Commissioner, CGST, Kanpur, and that period could not be ignored in computing limitation. The order rejecting the appeal as time-barred was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.
The Court held that time spent bona fide pursuing GST appellate relief before a wrong forum could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and that this question was distinct from condonation under Section 5. It distinguished authorities on Section 5 as dealing with self-contained special limitation schemes, not exclusion of time under Section 14. Applying the principle in Prakash Medical Stores, the Court found the petitioner had genuinely pursued the appeal before the Commissioner, CGST, Kanpur, and that period could not be ignored in computing limitation. The order rejecting the appeal as time-barred was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
