Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court set aside the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period. Despite the petitioner's representative's medical condition and reasons preventing timely filing, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal citing no scope for admission beyond four months from the order date. However, the court held this contrary to its earlier directive applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing condonation of delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. Considering the petitioner's bona fides, the substantial recovery already made, and the established principle of not gaining by filing a belated appeal, the court found the rejection unsustainable and disposed of the petition.
The High Court set aside the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period. Despite the petitioner's representative's medical condition and reasons preventing timely filing, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal citing no scope for admission beyond four months from the order date. However, the court held this contrary to its earlier directive applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing condonation of delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. Considering the petitioner's bona fides, the substantial recovery already made, and the established principle of not gaining by filing a belated appeal, the court found the rejection unsustainable and disposed of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.