Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the refund application, holding that the limitation period was validly extended by Supreme Court's COVID-19 order. The appellant's refund application filed on 12.04.2022 was deemed timely, as the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was explicitly excluded from limitation calculations. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for being unaware of the Supreme Court's directive, ultimately dismissing the lower court's orders and granting the appellant's appeals.
CESTAT allowed the refund application, holding that the limitation period was validly extended by Supreme Court's COVID-19 order. The appellant's refund application filed on 12.04.2022 was deemed timely, as the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was explicitly excluded from limitation calculations. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for being unaware of the Supreme Court's directive, ultimately dismissing the lower court's orders and granting the appellant's appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
