Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
