Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The High Court examined the issue of whether the Appellate Authority was legally correct in rejecting appeals filed beyond the time limit prescribed under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was found that while the petitioners had paid the pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, the appeals were admittedly filed beyond the limitation period, even exceeding the additional period of 30 days for condonation u/ss 107 and 35(1) of the Act. The provisions u/s 107 are not amenable to the Limitation Act, and the delay cannot be further condoned as the condonation is provided within the Act itself. Consequently, the Appellate Authority's action in rejecting the appeals cannot be deemed illegal or unjustified. The Supreme Court's decision in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab, regarding non-deposit of pre-deposit and rejection of appeals, was considered, wherein the High Court retains jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone the pre-deposit requirement based on case facts. The cancellation of GST registration has a cascading effect on other businesses, necessitating finality in the decision and an efficacious remedy for the aggrieved person. The powers to hear appeals u/s 107 would not be subject to filing within the prescribed time, as it would not deprive a person.
The High Court examined the issue of whether the Appellate Authority was legally correct in rejecting appeals filed beyond the time limit prescribed under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was found that while the petitioners had paid the pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, the appeals were admittedly filed beyond the limitation period, even exceeding the additional period of 30 days for condonation u/ss 107 and 35(1) of the Act. The provisions u/s 107 are not amenable to the Limitation Act, and the delay cannot be further condoned as the condonation is provided within the Act itself. Consequently, the Appellate Authority's action in rejecting the appeals cannot be deemed illegal or unjustified. The Supreme Court's decision in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab, regarding non-deposit of pre-deposit and rejection of appeals, was considered, wherein the High Court retains jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone the pre-deposit requirement based on case facts. The cancellation of GST registration has a cascading effect on other businesses, necessitating finality in the decision and an efficacious remedy for the aggrieved person. The powers to hear appeals u/s 107 would not be subject to filing within the prescribed time, as it would not deprive a person.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
