Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
HC examined interpretation of limitation periods under Section 107 of CGST Act 2017. The period of "three months" for filing appeal and "one month" for condonation of delay should be interpreted literally, not converted to 90 days and 30 days respectively. Following precedent from a recent arbitration case, HC determined that three-month period should be calculated calendar month-wise, not by counting days. In the instant case, appeal filed on 26.04.2024 fell within the extended one-month period from original deadline of 27.03.2024. Appellate authority erred by converting months to days. HC ruled that legislative intent clearly specified periods in months, not days. Appeal was held maintainable within condonation period subject to showing sufficient cause.
HC examined interpretation of limitation periods under Section 107 of CGST Act 2017. The period of "three months" for filing appeal and "one month" for condonation of delay should be interpreted literally, not converted to 90 days and 30 days respectively. Following precedent from a recent arbitration case, HC determined that three-month period should be calculated calendar month-wise, not by counting days. In the instant case, appeal filed on 26.04.2024 fell within the extended one-month period from original deadline of 27.03.2024. Appellate authority erred by converting months to days. HC ruled that legislative intent clearly specified periods in months, not days. Appeal was held maintainable within condonation period subject to showing sufficient cause.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
