Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
