Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ entertainability where the challenge was confined to the legality of rejection of the statutory appeal on limitation and to computation of limitation under the CGST Act. The High Court reiterated that the doctrine of merger does not apply when a filing is rejected as time-barred without consideration on merits. It further held that time spent in bona fide rectification proceedings could be excluded on Section 14 principles, as the proceeding was pursued with due diligence and good faith, and that an appellant must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain delay before dismissal as time-barred.
Availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ entertainability where the challenge was confined to the legality of rejection of the statutory appeal on limitation and to computation of limitation under the CGST Act. The High Court reiterated that the doctrine of merger does not apply when a filing is rejected as time-barred without consideration on merits. It further held that time spent in bona fide rectification proceedings could be excluded on Section 14 principles, as the proceeding was pursued with due diligence and good faith, and that an appellant must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain delay before dismissal as time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.