Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the Appellate Authority erroneously rejected appellant's appeal under Section 107 of the 2017 Act. While the appellant did not deposit the required 10% tax amount simultaneously with filing the appeal, they did make the payment within five days, which was still within the statutory limitation period prescribed by Section 107(1). The Court determined that Section 107(6)(b) should receive liberal interpretation, and when statutory deposit is made within the overall limitation period, it satisfies the requirement of deposit "along with appeal." Since both the appeal filing and statutory deposit occurred within the prescribed limitation period, the appeal should have been considered on its merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds. Petition allowed.
The HC held that the Appellate Authority erroneously rejected appellant's appeal under Section 107 of the 2017 Act. While the appellant did not deposit the required 10% tax amount simultaneously with filing the appeal, they did make the payment within five days, which was still within the statutory limitation period prescribed by Section 107(1). The Court determined that Section 107(6)(b) should receive liberal interpretation, and when statutory deposit is made within the overall limitation period, it satisfies the requirement of deposit "along with appeal." Since both the appeal filing and statutory deposit occurred within the prescribed limitation period, the appeal should have been considered on its merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
