Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The dominant issue was whether a 2262-day delay in filing a statutory appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Applying the liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice, the court held that the tribunal erred in treating the appellant's inaction as "total negligence," particularly given the SC's directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation due to COVID-19 and the impracticality of expecting daily portal monitoring. Since refusal would effectively bar scrutiny of a substantial penalty on merits, the delay was condoned and the question of law was answered in the appellant's favour. - HC
The dominant issue was whether a 2262-day delay in filing a statutory appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Applying the liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice, the court held that the tribunal erred in treating the appellant's inaction as "total negligence," particularly given the SC's directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation due to COVID-19 and the impracticality of expecting daily portal monitoring. Since refusal would effectively bar scrutiny of a substantial penalty on merits, the delay was condoned and the question of law was answered in the appellant's favour. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
