Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The Calcutta High Court addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appeal was found to be barred by limitation and lacked an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court referred to a previous case to determine the scope of Section 107 and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was concluded that the Appellate Authority retains the power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107(4) of the Act. Another case was cited to emphasize that the statute does not prohibit the Appellate Authority from exercising jurisdiction beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court set aside the Appellate Authority's observation that condonation of delay is only possible within one month from the prescribed period. Ultimately, no relief was granted to the petitioner, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
The Calcutta High Court addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appeal was found to be barred by limitation and lacked an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court referred to a previous case to determine the scope of Section 107 and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was concluded that the Appellate Authority retains the power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107(4) of the Act. Another case was cited to emphasize that the statute does not prohibit the Appellate Authority from exercising jurisdiction beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court set aside the Appellate Authority's observation that condonation of delay is only possible within one month from the prescribed period. Ultimately, no relief was granted to the petitioner, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
