Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.