Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
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.