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...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96140 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.