Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
A waiver application under Notification No. 21/2024-Central Tax was treated by the High Court as subject to a directory, not mandatory, three-month filing period because the notification used the word may. The rejection of the application solely on the ground of delay was therefore based on an erroneous interpretation of law. The Court quashed the rejection in FORM GST SPL-07 and directed the authority to reconsider the waiver application on merits in accordance with law, while keeping the show cause notice, summary notice and order in original in abeyance until that reconsideration.
A waiver application under Notification No. 21/2024-Central Tax was treated by the High Court as subject to a directory, not mandatory, three-month filing period because the notification used the word may. The rejection of the application solely on the ground of delay was therefore based on an erroneous interpretation of law. The Court quashed the rejection in FORM GST SPL-07 and directed the authority to reconsider the waiver application on merits in accordance with law, while keeping the show cause notice, summary notice and order in original in abeyance until that reconsideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
