Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2024 (1) TMI 1216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....granted. 2. The limited issue which arises in these appeals is with regard to the grievance of the appellant-Department insofar as the impugned order is concerned under which two questions of law which the appellant-Department sought to raise before the High Court in the context of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty, were not permitted to be raised. 3. To elaborate, the appellant sought to raise additional questions with regard to the Tribunal not permitting extended period of limitation to the appellant-Department for recovery of dues and for receiving penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the High Court in paragraphs 5 to 13 has elaborately consider....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....extended period of limitation as well as on penalty and there is no merit in these appeals. 8. At the outset we find that while the High Court has framed certain substantial questions of law as raised by the appellant herein and the matter(s) is pending consideration on merits, the High Court could not have in the first instance gone into the merits of the case(s) insofar as extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty is concerned and, on that basis, declined to frame the substantial questions of law. 9. We find that the High Court ought to have raised the substantial questions of law as sought for by the appellant herein in the first instance and thereafter considered the same on merits by answering the same one way or th....