Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96000 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 filed under section 61 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, due to the petitioner's unexplained delay in filing the appeal and failure to pay a substantial outstanding demand. Despite being notified of discrepancies, the petitioner neither complied with the payment requirements nor responded to the Court's offer to secure Rs. 1 crore as security. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief without securing at least part of the demand. The petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount, after adjusting the pre-deposit, within four weeks. Upon such payment, the appellate authority is mandated to hear and decide the appeal on its merits. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC dismissed the petition filed under section 61 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, due to the petitioner's unexplained delay in filing the appeal and failure to pay a substantial outstanding demand. Despite being notified of discrepancies, the petitioner neither complied with the payment requirements nor responded to the Court's offer to secure Rs. 1 crore as security. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief without securing at least part of the demand. The petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount, after adjusting the pre-deposit, within four weeks. Upon such payment, the appellate authority is mandated to hear and decide the appeal on its merits. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
