Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
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 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
