Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
The sole issue is whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by treating the 10% ceiling in the Third Proviso to Section 19(1) as a mandatory minimum despite finding "undue hardship" and poor financial condition. The Court held that "undue hardship" means a burden disproportionate to the requirement; where an NPA-classified appellant lacks liquid assets a multi-crore deposit is prima facie impossible and would render the statutory right of appeal illusory. The Tribunal ought to have imposed alternative conditions (indemnity bonds, corporate guarantees) under the Second Proviso; appeal allowed. - HC
The sole issue is whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by treating the 10% ceiling in the Third Proviso to Section 19(1) as a mandatory minimum despite finding "undue hardship" and poor financial condition. The Court held that "undue hardship" means a burden disproportionate to the requirement; where an NPA-classified appellant lacks liquid assets a multi-crore deposit is prima facie impossible and would render the statutory right of appeal illusory. The Tribunal ought to have imposed alternative conditions (indemnity bonds, corporate guarantees) under the Second Proviso; appeal allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
