Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in relation to the period of limitation under tax laws like the Central Excise Act and the APGST Act. The Supreme Court has held that where the special law restricts the additional period for condonation of delay, it effectively excludes Section 5 of the Limitation Act by necessary implication. Section 107 of the APGST Act prescribes the limitation period for filing appeals and restricts the condonable period to 30 days. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded, and the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond 30 days u/s 107(4) of the APGST Act. The HC dismissed the petition, upholding the applicability of Section 29(2) and the exclusion of Section 5 in such cases.
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in relation to the period of limitation under tax laws like the Central Excise Act and the APGST Act. The Supreme Court has held that where the special law restricts the additional period for condonation of delay, it effectively excludes Section 5 of the Limitation Act by necessary implication. Section 107 of the APGST Act prescribes the limitation period for filing appeals and restricts the condonable period to 30 days. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded, and the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond 30 days u/s 107(4) of the APGST Act. The HC dismissed the petition, upholding the applicability of Section 29(2) and the exclusion of Section 5 in such cases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
