https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441189 The dominant issue was whether the rectification application under s.161 TNVAT was time-barred. The HC held that the computation of the 90-day limitation had to exclude the period covered by the SC's suo motu extension of limitation, with the balance period recommencing thereafter; on this basis, the rectification application filed within the extended period was within limitation, and the rejection as barred by time was legally unsustainable, leading to quashing of the impugned rejection order. The HC further held that reconsideration must comply with principles of natural justice; accordingly, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration with a personal hearing, to be completed within eight weeks. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 14:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441189 The dominant issue was whether the rectification application under s.161 TNVAT was time-barred. The HC held that the computation of the 90-day limitation had to exclude the period covered by the SC's suo motu extension of limitation, with the balance period recommencing thereafter; on this basis, the rectification application filed within the extended period was within limitation, and the rejection as barred by time was legally unsustainable, leading to quashing of the impugned rejection order. The HC further held that reconsideration must comply with principles of natural justice; accordingly, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration with a personal hearing, to be completed within eight weeks. Case-Laws GST Tue, 04 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441189