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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 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 petition seeking condonation of a 394-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017. The court held that Section 107(4) permits condonation of delay only up to one month upon satisfaction of sufficient cause, and any delay beyond that without cogent reasons cannot be condoned. The reasons provided for the extensive delay were deemed inadequate. Additionally, the challenge to the Adjudicating Authority's order on grounds of violation of natural justice due to improper hearing notice was rejected. Consequently, the statutory limitation period was upheld, and the appeal was not entertained beyond the prescribed time frame.
The HC dismissed the petition seeking condonation of a 394-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017. The court held that Section 107(4) permits condonation of delay only up to one month upon satisfaction of sufficient cause, and any delay beyond that without cogent reasons cannot be condoned. The reasons provided for the extensive delay were deemed inadequate. Additionally, the challenge to the Adjudicating Authority's order on grounds of violation of natural justice due to improper hearing notice was rejected. Consequently, the statutory limitation period was upheld, and the appeal was not entertained beyond the prescribed time frame.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
