Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Whether the avoidance application under ss. 43, 44, 66 and 69 read with Reg. 35A(3) was barred by limitation was the dominant issue. The tribunal held it was not time-barred because the computation of limitation stood extended by SC's suo motu COVID-19 directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, and the filing was within the implied period permitted by the prior order granting liberty to apply; further, delay could be condoned without a formal application if sufficient material existed on record, rendering reliance on a contrary CPC-based HC decision inapposite. Consequently, the order refusing to dismiss the application as time-barred and directing hearing on merits was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Whether the avoidance application under ss. 43, 44, 66 and 69 read with Reg. 35A(3) was barred by limitation was the dominant issue. The tribunal held it was not time-barred because the computation of limitation stood extended by SC's suo motu COVID-19 directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, and the filing was within the implied period permitted by the prior order granting liberty to apply; further, delay could be condoned without a formal application if sufficient material existed on record, rendering reliance on a contrary CPC-based HC decision inapposite. Consequently, the order refusing to dismiss the application as time-barred and directing hearing on merits was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
