Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The petitioner filed appeals against orders under CGST/SGST Acts after a delay of four years. The court held that it cannot normally exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to extend the time limit for filing appeals u/s 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts, as per the Supreme Court's rulings in Singh Enterprises and Ketan V. Parekh cases. Although Section 5 of the Limitation Act may not apply, the benefit of Section 14 can be extended in rare cases with extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case. Despite Article 226 not fixing a limitation period for writ petitions, inordinate delay in filing can lead to dismissal. The petitioner's contention of illness was viewed with suspicion. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed due to the failure to approach the court within a reasonable time and the absence of extraordinary circumstances justifying condonation of delay.
The petitioner filed appeals against orders under CGST/SGST Acts after a delay of four years. The court held that it cannot normally exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to extend the time limit for filing appeals u/s 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts, as per the Supreme Court's rulings in Singh Enterprises and Ketan V. Parekh cases. Although Section 5 of the Limitation Act may not apply, the benefit of Section 14 can be extended in rare cases with extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case. Despite Article 226 not fixing a limitation period for writ petitions, inordinate delay in filing can lead to dismissal. The petitioner's contention of illness was viewed with suspicion. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed due to the failure to approach the court within a reasonable time and the absence of extraordinary circumstances justifying condonation of delay.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
