Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
