Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed beyond the prescribed limitation period for appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, holding that service by registered email constitutes valid service, triggering the limitation period. The court reaffirmed that statutory limitation periods are absolute and not extendable by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act or through writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay or explain the non-filing within time. The HC emphasized adherence to the exclusive statutory appellate mechanism, refusing to condone delay or entertain the petition on grounds neither involving gross injustice nor patent illegality. Consequently, allowing the petition would circumvent the statutory appellate process and render the limitation provision ineffective. The petition was rejected in limine.
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed beyond the prescribed limitation period for appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, holding that service by registered email constitutes valid service, triggering the limitation period. The court reaffirmed that statutory limitation periods are absolute and not extendable by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act or through writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay or explain the non-filing within time. The HC emphasized adherence to the exclusive statutory appellate mechanism, refusing to condone delay or entertain the petition on grounds neither involving gross injustice nor patent illegality. Consequently, allowing the petition would circumvent the statutory appellate process and render the limitation provision ineffective. The petition was rejected in limine.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
