Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
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-...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96091 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AAAR dismissed the appeal due to late filing beyond the statutorily prescribed time limits under Section 100(2) of CGST Act, 2017. The Authority clarified that while it has discretionary power to condone delays, this power is strictly limited to an additional 30 days beyond the initial 30-day filing period. The appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, with their first communication occurring on 17.10.2024, well after both the original deadline (30.08.2024) and the condonable period (29.09.2024) had expired. The AAAR emphasized that ignorance of filing procedures cannot excuse non-compliance, and the discretionary power to condone delays is not obligatory but contingent upon showing sufficient cause within statutory timeframes.
The AAAR dismissed the appeal due to late filing beyond the statutorily prescribed time limits under Section 100(2) of CGST Act, 2017. The Authority clarified that while it has discretionary power to condone delays, this power is strictly limited to an additional 30 days beyond the initial 30-day filing period. The appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, with their first communication occurring on 17.10.2024, well after both the original deadline (30.08.2024) and the condonable period (29.09.2024) had expired. The AAAR emphasized that ignorance of filing procedures cannot excuse non-compliance, and the discretionary power to condone delays is not obligatory but contingent upon showing sufficient cause within statutory timeframes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.