Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
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 4811 
Join Channel 
