Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 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 dismissed the writ petitions subject to conditions: the Appellate Authority's initial rejection of an appeal for failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit was upheld as valid, and a subsequent belated appeal was held time-barred; res judicata did not apply because the first appeal was not an appeal in law. The petitions are disposed by directing restoration of the appeal before the Appellate Authority provided the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receipt of the order, failing which the Appellate Authority may proceed in accordance with law.
The HC dismissed the writ petitions subject to conditions: the Appellate Authority's initial rejection of an appeal for failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit was upheld as valid, and a subsequent belated appeal was held time-barred; res judicata did not apply because the first appeal was not an appeal in law. The petitions are disposed by directing restoration of the appeal before the Appellate Authority provided the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receipt of the order, failing which the Appellate Authority may proceed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
