Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
HC held that electronic service of notices under Central Excise Act 1944 is permissible through application of CGST Act provisions. Reading Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c) of CGST Act together enables electronic service modes for existing laws including 1944 Act, despite Section 37C being silent on email service. Court rejected petitioner's argument against electronic notice validity and distinguished prior CESTAT precedent as inapplicable. Directed petitioner to pursue statutory appeal remedy with delay condonation application, excluding court proceedings duration from limitation period. Time spent before court would not count towards appeal limitation. Petition disposed of with directions to appellate authority to consider appeal per law.
HC held that electronic service of notices under Central Excise Act 1944 is permissible through application of CGST Act provisions. Reading Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c) of CGST Act together enables electronic service modes for existing laws including 1944 Act, despite Section 37C being silent on email service. Court rejected petitioner's argument against electronic notice validity and distinguished prior CESTAT precedent as inapplicable. Directed petitioner to pursue statutory appeal remedy with delay condonation application, excluding court proceedings duration from limitation period. Time spent before court would not count towards appeal limitation. Petition disposed of with directions to appellate authority to consider appeal per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
