Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT dismissed the restoration of appeal application filed by the appellant following non-appearance despite multiple hearing opportunities. The appellant's appeal was originally dismissed for want of prosecution after failing to appear for seven scheduled hearings. While the appellant submitted medical certificate citing Lumbar Spondylitis requiring three months bed rest from June 2024, CESTAT noted the medical restriction ended before several hearing dates in October-November 2024. The tribunal held that restoration of appeal is not a matter of right and is permitted only in exceptional cases with valid justification. Despite the Supreme Court precedent in CIT vs Chennappa Mudaliar requiring tribunals to decide appeals on merits rather than dismissing for non-appearance, CESTAT found the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for consistent non-appearance and exercised its powers under Rule 21 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982 to pass final ex-parte order dismissing the restoration application.
CESTAT dismissed the restoration of appeal application filed by the appellant following non-appearance despite multiple hearing opportunities. The appellant's appeal was originally dismissed for want of prosecution after failing to appear for seven scheduled hearings. While the appellant submitted medical certificate citing Lumbar Spondylitis requiring three months bed rest from June 2024, CESTAT noted the medical restriction ended before several hearing dates in October-November 2024. The tribunal held that restoration of appeal is not a matter of right and is permitted only in exceptional cases with valid justification. Despite the Supreme Court precedent in CIT vs Chennappa Mudaliar requiring tribunals to decide appeals on merits rather than dismissing for non-appearance, CESTAT found the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for consistent non-appearance and exercised its powers under Rule 21 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982 to pass final ex-parte order dismissing the restoration application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
