Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 95955 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 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order determining the amount of tax u/s 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2016. The court observed that a coordinate bench had previously directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal within the limitation period from the date of the order. However, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit and instead filed the present writ petition after a considerable delay. The High Court held that since the coordinate bench had granted a specific relief, which the petitioner chose not to avail, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and was consequently dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order determining the amount of tax u/s 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2016. The court observed that a coordinate bench had previously directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal within the limitation period from the date of the order. However, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit and instead filed the present writ petition after a considerable delay. The High Court held that since the coordinate bench had granted a specific relief, which the petitioner chose not to avail, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and was consequently dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.