Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6681 to 6700 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.