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 petition challenging the order refusing to entertain an appeal, holding the appeal was instituted beyond the maximum condonable period and no non-communication of the Order-in-Original was established. The court found the reasons for delay insufficient and concluded the appeal exceeded the statutory extended limitation period, precluding further condonation. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 could not subvert the legislative scheme embodied in the statutory limitation framework (including the prescribed condonable period), and the petitioner's arguable merits could not cure the jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the impugned order declining to admit the appeal was upheld.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the order refusing to entertain an appeal, holding the appeal was instituted beyond the maximum condonable period and no non-communication of the Order-in-Original was established. The court found the reasons for delay insufficient and concluded the appeal exceeded the statutory extended limitation period, precluding further condonation. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 could not subvert the legislative scheme embodied in the statutory limitation framework (including the prescribed condonable period), and the petitioner's arguable merits could not cure the jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the impugned order declining to admit the appeal was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
