Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petitioner relied on a notification dated 02.11.2023, which allowed appeals against orders u/ss 73 or 74 of the GST Act passed before 31.03.2023 to be filed by 31.01.2024 without being time-barred. However, the impugned order in the present case was passed on 20.07.2023, after the cut-off date mentioned in the notification. The court held that the notification did not aid the petitioner. Relying on the case of M/s Yadav Steels, the court observed that delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Act. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.
The court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petitioner relied on a notification dated 02.11.2023, which allowed appeals against orders u/ss 73 or 74 of the GST Act passed before 31.03.2023 to be filed by 31.01.2024 without being time-barred. However, the impugned order in the present case was passed on 20.07.2023, after the cut-off date mentioned in the notification. The court held that the notification did not aid the petitioner. Relying on the case of M/s Yadav Steels, the court observed that delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Act. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
