Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
High Court exercised extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone delay in filing a statutory CGST appeal where the delay resulted from counsel/consultant accountant negligence, holding that a litigant should not be penalised for counsel's mistake; relief was granted and the writ petition allowed. The court emphasised that denial of opportunity to restore GST registration or pursue statutory remedies when the taxpayer proposes to comply (filing returns, paying taxes, interest and penalties) would frustrate the facilitative objective of the GST regime and impose disproportionate hardship, infringing Articles 14 and 21; therefore the appellate remedy was not rendered illusory.
High Court exercised extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone delay in filing a statutory CGST appeal where the delay resulted from counsel/consultant accountant negligence, holding that a litigant should not be penalised for counsel's mistake; relief was granted and the writ petition allowed. The court emphasised that denial of opportunity to restore GST registration or pursue statutory remedies when the taxpayer proposes to comply (filing returns, paying taxes, interest and penalties) would frustrate the facilitative objective of the GST regime and impose disproportionate hardship, infringing Articles 14 and 21; therefore the appellate remedy was not rendered illusory.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
