Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The judgment addresses the jurisdiction and competence of the Appellate Authority u/s 107(4) of the Act of 2017 to condone delays in filing appeals against decisions or orders passed by an adjudicating authority beyond the prescribed time limit. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bengal Chemists and Druggists Association v. Kalyan Chowdhury, which interpreted a similar provision in the Companies Act, 2013. It held that the Appellate Authority cannot entertain an appeal u/s 107 if it is filed beyond four months from the date of communication of the decision or order. While the High Court has extraordinary jurisdiction to condone delays in exceptional circumstances to prevent gross injustice, the reasons provided by the petitioner were found insufficient to warrant such exercise. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.
The judgment addresses the jurisdiction and competence of the Appellate Authority u/s 107(4) of the Act of 2017 to condone delays in filing appeals against decisions or orders passed by an adjudicating authority beyond the prescribed time limit. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bengal Chemists and Druggists Association v. Kalyan Chowdhury, which interpreted a similar provision in the Companies Act, 2013. It held that the Appellate Authority cannot entertain an appeal u/s 107 if it is filed beyond four months from the date of communication of the decision or order. While the High Court has extraordinary jurisdiction to condone delays in exceptional circumstances to prevent gross injustice, the reasons provided by the petitioner were found insufficient to warrant such exercise. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
