Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
