Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
