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...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
