Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 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.