https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468067 The discussion distinguishes Supreme Court precedents on belated challenges and service of orders. It explains that in M/s. Shoeline, relief against interest and penalty was considered despite delay because the underlying tax was not payable in law, whereas the claimant was otherwise not entitled to refund of tax already paid. It further notes that Mrinmoy Maity is factually distinguishable because it concerned condonation of delay in a writ petition over LPG dealership, where no prescribed limitation applied. In the present matter, service of the impugned order remained disputed, so the Court did not finally decide the revision and directed the revenue to file an affidavit on that factual issue. en-us Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:22:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468067 The discussion distinguishes Supreme Court precedents on belated challenges and service of orders. It explains that in M/s. Shoeline, relief against interest and penalty was considered despite delay because the underlying tax was not payable in law, whereas the claimant was otherwise not entitled to refund of tax already paid. It further notes that Mrinmoy Maity is factually distinguishable because it concerned condonation of delay in a writ petition over LPG dealership, where no prescribed limitation applied. In the present matter, service of the impugned order remained disputed, so the Court did not finally decide the revision and directed the revenue to file an affidavit on that factual issue. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468067