Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
