Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A High Court held that, after excluding the Supreme Court-directed period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, limitation for the GST cancellation appeal commenced on 01.03.2022, not on the date of the cancellation order. The appeal filed on 06.06.2022 was beyond 90 days but within the additional condonable period under Section 107(4), so the appellate authority wrongly treated it as time-barred and as having no discretion to consider condonation. The rejection was quashed and the matter remanded for consideration of delay condonation and, if allowed, disposal of the appeal on merits, without any view on sufficiency of cause.
A High Court held that, after excluding the Supreme Court-directed period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, limitation for the GST cancellation appeal commenced on 01.03.2022, not on the date of the cancellation order. The appeal filed on 06.06.2022 was beyond 90 days but within the additional condonable period under Section 107(4), so the appellate authority wrongly treated it as time-barred and as having no discretion to consider condonation. The rejection was quashed and the matter remanded for consideration of delay condonation and, if allowed, disposal of the appeal on merits, without any view on sufficiency of cause.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
