Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the earlier dismissal of the Appellant's appeal was purely procedural for failure to make the mandatory 7.5% pre-deposit and not a merits adjudication; consequently the adjudicating Authority was not functus officio upon subsequent deposit. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi dated 17.01.2024 is set aside, the appeal is restored to its original number and remitted for adjudication on merits. The decision clarifies that procedural non-compliance resulting in non-entertainment does not extinguish the Appellant's substantive right to appellate adjudication once procedural requirements are satisfied.
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the earlier dismissal of the Appellant's appeal was purely procedural for failure to make the mandatory 7.5% pre-deposit and not a merits adjudication; consequently the adjudicating Authority was not functus officio upon subsequent deposit. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi dated 17.01.2024 is set aside, the appeal is restored to its original number and remitted for adjudication on merits. The decision clarifies that procedural non-compliance resulting in non-entertainment does not extinguish the Appellant's substantive right to appellate adjudication once procedural requirements are satisfied.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
