Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The HC dismissed a petition challenging the Appellate Authority's refusal to condone a 95-day delay in filing a GST appeal. Under Section 107(1) of GST law, appeals must be filed within three months from communication of the order, with Section 107(4) allowing the Authority to condone delays only up to an additional one month. The Court affirmed that the Limitation Act does not apply to GST appeals, citing Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Private Limited where the SC held delays beyond 120 days cannot be condoned. Since the petitioner failed to disclose when the order was communicated, limitation was counted from the order date (21.07.2023), and neither the Appellate Authority nor the HC had statutory power to condone delays exceeding one month.
The HC dismissed a petition challenging the Appellate Authority's refusal to condone a 95-day delay in filing a GST appeal. Under Section 107(1) of GST law, appeals must be filed within three months from communication of the order, with Section 107(4) allowing the Authority to condone delays only up to an additional one month. The Court affirmed that the Limitation Act does not apply to GST appeals, citing Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Private Limited where the SC held delays beyond 120 days cannot be condoned. Since the petitioner failed to disclose when the order was communicated, limitation was counted from the order date (21.07.2023), and neither the Appellate Authority nor the HC had statutory power to condone delays exceeding one month.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
