https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448817 In a statutory appeal, the dominant issue was whether the HC, while admitting the appeal, could refuse to frame additional substantial questions of law on the Revenue's entitlement to invoke the extended limitation period for recovery and on imposition of penalty. The SC held that once the appeal stood admitted and awaited final adjudication, the HC ought to have framed the proposed substantial questions and decided them on merits at the final hearing; declining them at the admission stage with detailed reasons was unnecessary and could prejudice the appellant because substantial questions may interrelate. The impugned portion refusing to frame those questions was set aside and the matter was remitted to the HC to hear the parties by framing both questions. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448817 In a statutory appeal, the dominant issue was whether the HC, while admitting the appeal, could refuse to frame additional substantial questions of law on the Revenue's entitlement to invoke the extended limitation period for recovery and on imposition of penalty. The SC held that once the appeal stood admitted and awaited final adjudication, the HC ought to have framed the proposed substantial questions and decided them on merits at the final hearing; declining them at the admission stage with detailed reasons was unnecessary and could prejudice the appellant because substantial questions may interrelate. The impugned portion refusing to frame those questions was set aside and the matter was remitted to the HC to hear the parties by framing both questions. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448817