Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Section 42 of the I&B Code was treated as a self-contained limitation provision prescribing the remedy, forum and a fourteen-day period to challenge a liquidator's acceptance or rejection of a claim. The Appellate Tribunal held that Section 238A does not override that special limitation regime or permit extension through Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It further held that pendency of a separate CIRP appeal had no bearing on the Section 42 timeline because the two proceedings operate independently. As the appeal was filed long after receipt of the liquidator's decision, the delay was beyond condonable limits and the plea of ignorance of remedy was rejected.
Section 42 of the I&B Code was treated as a self-contained limitation provision prescribing the remedy, forum and a fourteen-day period to challenge a liquidator's acceptance or rejection of a claim. The Appellate Tribunal held that Section 238A does not override that special limitation regime or permit extension through Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It further held that pendency of a separate CIRP appeal had no bearing on the Section 42 timeline because the two proceedings operate independently. As the appeal was filed long after receipt of the liquidator's decision, the delay was beyond condonable limits and the plea of ignorance of remedy was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
