Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
