Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
HC quashed the appellate authority's order rejecting petitioner's appeal as time-barred under CGST Act. Petitioner attempted filing appeal within statutory period under Section 107 but was prevented by system malfunction that rejected appeals where demanded tax was already paid. Despite petitioner's protest payment and timely filing attempt, authorities failed to address technical impediment. Court held denial of statutory remedy was attributable solely to respondents' defective system, not petitioner's conduct. Appellate authority erred in mechanically applying time limitation without considering circumstances preventing timely submission. HC directed restoration of appeal and consideration on merits, treating it as timely filed, recognizing petitioner's right to appeal remains despite tax payment under protest.
HC quashed the appellate authority's order rejecting petitioner's appeal as time-barred under CGST Act. Petitioner attempted filing appeal within statutory period under Section 107 but was prevented by system malfunction that rejected appeals where demanded tax was already paid. Despite petitioner's protest payment and timely filing attempt, authorities failed to address technical impediment. Court held denial of statutory remedy was attributable solely to respondents' defective system, not petitioner's conduct. Appellate authority erred in mechanically applying time limitation without considering circumstances preventing timely submission. HC directed restoration of appeal and consideration on merits, treating it as timely filed, recognizing petitioner's right to appeal remains despite tax payment under protest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
