<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (1) TMI 127 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764065</link>
    <description>The Calcutta HC allowed a writ petition challenging authorities&#039; actions regarding bank account freezing and adjudication proceedings. The petitioner claimed undue hardship and procedural fairness violations. The court examined documents and arguments, finding the case meritorious due to procedural irregularities and arbitrary actions by authorities. Relying on precedent, the HC held that statutory limitation provisions should be interpreted liberally when genuine hardships are demonstrated. The court noted that Section 5 of the 1963 Act applies, making the 60-day appeal period (30 days prescribed plus 30 days discretionary) not final, allowing appellate authorities to extend filing periods based on case circumstances. The HC quashed the appellate order, emphasizing that limitation periods can be extended where procedural irregularities and arbitrary administrative actions cause genuine hardship to petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=785612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 127 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764065</link>
      <description>The Calcutta HC allowed a writ petition challenging authorities&#039; actions regarding bank account freezing and adjudication proceedings. The petitioner claimed undue hardship and procedural fairness violations. The court examined documents and arguments, finding the case meritorious due to procedural irregularities and arbitrary actions by authorities. Relying on precedent, the HC held that statutory limitation provisions should be interpreted liberally when genuine hardships are demonstrated. The court noted that Section 5 of the 1963 Act applies, making the 60-day appeal period (30 days prescribed plus 30 days discretionary) not final, allowing appellate authorities to extend filing periods based on case circumstances. The HC quashed the appellate order, emphasizing that limitation periods can be extended where procedural irregularities and arbitrary administrative actions cause genuine hardship to petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>