Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
