Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
