Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The complaint was time-barred and filed beyond the stipulated period u/s 142(b) of the NI Act. The demand notice was served to the accused company through email on 11.03.2022, which constituted effective service on the directors as well. The limitation period commenced from the date of service, and the complaint filed on 28.04.2022 was beyond the prescribed time limit without seeking condonation of delay. The trial court took cognizance without considering the delay, rendering the complaint not maintainable. Consequently, the criminal complaint was quashed, and the order taking cognizance was set aside by the High Court.
The complaint was time-barred and filed beyond the stipulated period u/s 142(b) of the NI Act. The demand notice was served to the accused company through email on 11.03.2022, which constituted effective service on the directors as well. The limitation period commenced from the date of service, and the complaint filed on 28.04.2022 was beyond the prescribed time limit without seeking condonation of delay. The trial court took cognizance without considering the delay, rendering the complaint not maintainable. Consequently, the criminal complaint was quashed, and the order taking cognizance was set aside by the High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
