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...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant challenged the summoning order on the ground that the complaint was not premature, as it was filed within the limitation period of one month from the cause of action u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The SC held that the cause of action for the complainant arises when there is no payment of the dishonored cheque amount within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice. In this case, the legal notice was received on 01.10.2019, and the reply was given on 16.10.2019 without payment. Therefore, the complaint filed on 23.10.2019 was within the one-month limitation period from 16.10.2019 as per Section 142(1)(b) of the Act. The HC erred in construing the limitation period from the reply date instead of the non-payment date. The SC set aside the HC order and revived the summoning order, allowing the appeal.
The appellant challenged the summoning order on the ground that the complaint was not premature, as it was filed within the limitation period of one month from the cause of action u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The SC held that the cause of action for the complainant arises when there is no payment of the dishonored cheque amount within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice. In this case, the legal notice was received on 01.10.2019, and the reply was given on 16.10.2019 without payment. Therefore, the complaint filed on 23.10.2019 was within the one-month limitation period from 16.10.2019 as per Section 142(1)(b) of the Act. The HC erred in construing the limitation period from the reply date instead of the non-payment date. The SC set aside the HC order and revived the summoning order, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
