Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Concurrent anticipatory-bail jurisdiction permits applications before either forum, while secured evidence may negate custodial interrogation in GST e...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 112(3) confines the prescribed limitation period to filing an appeal before the Tribunal and does not impose a separate six-month deadline on the Commissioner to review the first appellate order. A departmental appeal filed within the applicable extended filing period therefore remains maintainable even where the Commissioner's review occurred after six months. The maintainability objection was rejected, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
Section 112(3) confines the prescribed limitation period to filing an appeal before the Tribunal and does not impose a separate six-month deadline on the Commissioner to review the first appellate order. A departmental appeal filed within the applicable extended filing period therefore remains maintainable even where the Commissioner's review occurred after six months. The maintainability objection was rejected, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.