Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 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" ?
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
