Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that service of notice by uploading on the portal constitutes valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The court rejected the contention that personal service was mandatory, finding that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and had responded to the show-cause notice. The appellate authority's mechanical rejection of the appeal for delay was deemed incorrect, following precedent that allows condonation beyond the extended one-month period. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petition was disposed of, affirming a more flexible interpretation of service and delay condonation provisions.
HC held that service of notice by uploading on the portal constitutes valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The court rejected the contention that personal service was mandatory, finding that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and had responded to the show-cause notice. The appellate authority's mechanical rejection of the appeal for delay was deemed incorrect, following precedent that allows condonation beyond the extended one-month period. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petition was disposed of, affirming a more flexible interpretation of service and delay condonation provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.