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 petitioner challenged the assessment order solely on the ground of not availing the statutory remedy of appeal. The court held that the petitioner did not file an appeal and allowed the assessment order to become final, subsequently approaching the court through a writ petition to challenge the tax, interest, and penalty determination. The petitioner was given an opportunity for a hearing, and the impugned order was passed thereafter. No plausible explanation was provided for not resorting to the statutory appeal remedy. The petitioner consciously chose not to file an appeal u/s 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, allowing the limitation period and the maximum condonable delay period to expire. Having not preferred an appeal, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
The petitioner challenged the assessment order solely on the ground of not availing the statutory remedy of appeal. The court held that the petitioner did not file an appeal and allowed the assessment order to become final, subsequently approaching the court through a writ petition to challenge the tax, interest, and penalty determination. The petitioner was given an opportunity for a hearing, and the impugned order was passed thereafter. No plausible explanation was provided for not resorting to the statutory appeal remedy. The petitioner consciously chose not to file an appeal u/s 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, allowing the limitation period and the maximum condonable delay period to expire. Having not preferred an appeal, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
