Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
