Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
