Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
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 
