https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257013 The Delhi HC held that the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Commissioner's refusal to compound under Section 54 because such orders were not excluded from the general appellate scheme. It further held that compounding under Section 54 read with Rule 44 is a structured statutory power requiring the Commissioner to determine the lawful composition amount on considerations of justice, public policy, and adequacy of the offer; a deficient offer cannot be rejected mechanically. The Commissioner could not refuse composition on the stated grounds after remand, and the Tribunal's core conclusion upholding the second rejection as improper was affirmed, subject to deletion of adverse remarks and costs. en-us Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257013 The Delhi HC held that the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Commissioner's refusal to compound under Section 54 because such orders were not excluded from the general appellate scheme. It further held that compounding under Section 54 read with Rule 44 is a structured statutory power requiring the Commissioner to determine the lawful composition amount on considerations of justice, public policy, and adequacy of the offer; a deficient offer cannot be rejected mechanically. The Commissioner could not refuse composition on the stated grounds after remand, and the Tribunal's core conclusion upholding the second rejection as improper was affirmed, subject to deletion of adverse remarks and costs. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257013