Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
