Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In GST appeal limitation, the HC held that where the statute requires filing within three months from communication of the order, the date of communication must be excluded and limitation runs from the next day; "month" means a calendar month. On that computation, the appeal fell within the condonable period, so the appellate authority erred in treating it as time-barred. The HC also found that the authority failed to consider the electronically filed reply to the show cause notice on limitation, which deprived the petitioner of fair consideration and amounted to an apparent error on the record. The rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
In GST appeal limitation, the HC held that where the statute requires filing within three months from communication of the order, the date of communication must be excluded and limitation runs from the next day; "month" means a calendar month. On that computation, the appeal fell within the condonable period, so the appellate authority erred in treating it as time-barred. The HC also found that the authority failed to consider the electronically filed reply to the show cause notice on limitation, which deprived the petitioner of fair consideration and amounted to an apparent error on the record. The rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.