Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
