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...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
