Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Section 107 of the GST law allows an appeal within three months, with only one further month condonable on sufficient cause; once that outer limit expires, neither the Appellate Authority nor the HC can extend time. Applying Supreme Court guidance, the Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override the statutory limitation scheme, and explanations such as accountant negligence did not justify condonation beyond the cap. Having already pursued the statutory appeal, the petitioner was also not permitted to reopen the show-cause notice or cancellation order in writ proceedings, especially where no appearance was made before the appellate authority despite opportunity. The writ petition was dismissed.
Section 107 of the GST law allows an appeal within three months, with only one further month condonable on sufficient cause; once that outer limit expires, neither the Appellate Authority nor the HC can extend time. Applying Supreme Court guidance, the Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override the statutory limitation scheme, and explanations such as accountant negligence did not justify condonation beyond the cap. Having already pursued the statutory appeal, the petitioner was also not permitted to reopen the show-cause notice or cancellation order in writ proceedings, especially where no appearance was made before the appellate authority despite opportunity. The writ petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
