Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
HC held that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without ascertaining the actual date of uploading/communication of the order passed under s.74 on the GST portal. The authority's reliance on a general assumption that orders are reflected "in no time" at the registered taxpayer's end, without any specific inquiry or material to disprove the petitioner's assertion of receipt on 25.08.2022, was found unsustainable. HC observed that only the department could access the precise upload data and was obliged to verify it. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated 23.05.2023 was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on limitation and merits. Petition allowed by remand.
HC held that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without ascertaining the actual date of uploading/communication of the order passed under s.74 on the GST portal. The authority's reliance on a general assumption that orders are reflected "in no time" at the registered taxpayer's end, without any specific inquiry or material to disprove the petitioner's assertion of receipt on 25.08.2022, was found unsustainable. HC observed that only the department could access the precise upload data and was obliged to verify it. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated 23.05.2023 was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on limitation and merits. Petition allowed by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.