Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
Appellate authority lacked power to condone delay beyond the statutory 90-day limitation, so its dismissal on an 88-day delay was technically proper. The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, may condone delay if reasons are stated in the memo of appeal; on the facts hospitalisation of the appellant's mother for cancer and a bona fide deposit (7.5%) towards filing the High Court exercised that power and set aside the impugned order, with stay operating in favour of the appellant since 06.02.2017.
Appellate authority lacked power to condone delay beyond the statutory 90-day limitation, so its dismissal on an 88-day delay was technically proper. The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, may condone delay if reasons are stated in the memo of appeal; on the facts hospitalisation of the appellant's mother for cancer and a bona fide deposit (7.5%) towards filing the High Court exercised that power and set aside the impugned order, with stay operating in favour of the appellant since 06.02.2017.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
