Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The appeal against the cancellation order was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court held that it cannot condone the delay in filing the appeal under its extraordinary jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no power to condone the delay after the expiry of the statutory period for filing appeals under the relevant law. The Court observed that while it has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot disregard the substantive provisions of the statute and pass orders contrary to the mechanism prescribed therein. Consequently, no interference was warranted in the impugned orders, and the petition was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The appeal against the cancellation order was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court held that it cannot condone the delay in filing the appeal under its extraordinary jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no power to condone the delay after the expiry of the statutory period for filing appeals under the relevant law. The Court observed that while it has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot disregard the substantive provisions of the statute and pass orders contrary to the mechanism prescribed therein. Consequently, no interference was warranted in the impugned orders, and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
