Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
