Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
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...
HC allowed the appeal, finding the filing procedurally valid despite delay in certified copy submission. The court determined that online filing with electronic documents constitutes complete submission, and physical certification is not mandatory. Relying on precedent from Chegg India Private Limited, the HC held that technological advancements in filing systems should be interpreted liberally. The subsequent amendment to Rule 108(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 supports retrospective application, thereby validating the appellant's original submission. The court emphasized that technical procedural requirements should not impede substantive hearing of appeals on merits.
HC allowed the appeal, finding the filing procedurally valid despite delay in certified copy submission. The court determined that online filing with electronic documents constitutes complete submission, and physical certification is not mandatory. Relying on precedent from Chegg India Private Limited, the HC held that technological advancements in filing systems should be interpreted liberally. The subsequent amendment to Rule 108(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 supports retrospective application, thereby validating the appellant's original submission. The court emphasized that technical procedural requirements should not impede substantive hearing of appeals on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.