Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
