Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
The court examined whether the application filed by the State Bank of India against the personal guarantor u/s 95 was barred by limitation. It was held that even if no plea regarding limitation was raised, the court is obliged to examine the issue. The bank's pleadings clearly contained the extension of limitation u/s 18 of the Limitation Act. Since the pleadings were on record providing for extension, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the Section 95 application against the personal guarantor. The application was not barred by limitation. Regarding the admission of the application, the court held that the notice of demand was clearly given to the personal guarantor. The contention that fresh notices were required before filing the Section 95 application was rejected. Once the guarantee was invoked, the bank was entitled to initiate proceedings. Since the application was well within time, this ground could not be a reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the Section 95 application, and the appeal was dismissed.
The court examined whether the application filed by the State Bank of India against the personal guarantor u/s 95 was barred by limitation. It was held that even if no plea regarding limitation was raised, the court is obliged to examine the issue. The bank's pleadings clearly contained the extension of limitation u/s 18 of the Limitation Act. Since the pleadings were on record providing for extension, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the Section 95 application against the personal guarantor. The application was not barred by limitation. Regarding the admission of the application, the court held that the notice of demand was clearly given to the personal guarantor. The contention that fresh notices were required before filing the Section 95 application was rejected. Once the guarantee was invoked, the bank was entitled to initiate proceedings. Since the application was well within time, this ground could not be a reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the Section 95 application, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
