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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Section 128 of the Customs Act permits an appeal within 60 days of communication of the order, with only a further 30 days available for condonation by the appellate authority; beyond that outer limit, the authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The High Court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal in refusing to admit appeals filed after the statutory period. It further held that this limitation does not create an absolute bar to constitutional relief under Article 226. As the delay showed no deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides and the merits had never been examined, the Court condoned the delay subject to costs, set aside the appellate orders, and directed restoration of the appeal for fresh decision on merits.
Section 128 of the Customs Act permits an appeal within 60 days of communication of the order, with only a further 30 days available for condonation by the appellate authority; beyond that outer limit, the authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The High Court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal in refusing to admit appeals filed after the statutory period. It further held that this limitation does not create an absolute bar to constitutional relief under Article 226. As the delay showed no deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides and the merits had never been examined, the Court condoned the delay subject to costs, set aside the appellate orders, and directed restoration of the appeal for fresh decision on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
