Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 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 held that electronic communication of the impugned order (email) satisfied service requirements under Section 169 CGST and that delay in uploading Form DRC-07 or portal posting did not render the order time-barred. The court found prima facie service by email sufficient despite multiple noticees and considerable ITC allegations. The impugned order was declared appealable; the Petitioner was permitted to file statutory appeals under Section 107 CGST by 30 September 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit. If filed within that period, the appeals shall not be dismissed on limitation grounds and shall be adjudicated on merits. Petition disposed.
The HC held that electronic communication of the impugned order (email) satisfied service requirements under Section 169 CGST and that delay in uploading Form DRC-07 or portal posting did not render the order time-barred. The court found prima facie service by email sufficient despite multiple noticees and considerable ITC allegations. The impugned order was declared appealable; the Petitioner was permitted to file statutory appeals under Section 107 CGST by 30 September 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit. If filed within that period, the appeals shall not be dismissed on limitation grounds and shall be adjudicated on merits. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.