Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
The HC dismissed the appeal as time barred due to a 91-day delay in filing. The court held that the appellant/department, alleging lack of diligence by the respondent/assessee, must also adhere to the limitation period for filing appeals. The principle of equal diligence applies to both parties. The statute requires a fresh refund application following rectification of deficiencies. The court modified the Single Bench's direction, ordering the respondent to rectify all noted deficiencies and submit a fresh refund application within two weeks of receiving the order's certified copy. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the matter was remanded for compliance with these conditions.
The HC dismissed the appeal as time barred due to a 91-day delay in filing. The court held that the appellant/department, alleging lack of diligence by the respondent/assessee, must also adhere to the limitation period for filing appeals. The principle of equal diligence applies to both parties. The statute requires a fresh refund application following rectification of deficiencies. The court modified the Single Bench's direction, ordering the respondent to rectify all noted deficiencies and submit a fresh refund application within two weeks of receiving the order's certified copy. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the matter was remanded for compliance with these conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.