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
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    The Transformation of Information-Gathering Powers : Clause 259 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Statutory Powers to Collect Information in Tax Administration : Clause 254 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Transformation of Income-tax Survey Provisions in India : Clause 253 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs...
    Powers to Call for Information under the Income Tax Law : Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs...
    Balancing Revenue Recovery and Taxpayer Rights : Clause 250 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section...
    Balancing Tax Enforcement and Procedural Fairness in the Search and Seizure : Clause 249 of the Inco...
    Evolution and Implications of Requisition Powers in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 248 of the Income...
    Procedural Safeguards and Retention of Seized Materials during search and seizure operations : Claus...
    Non-Disclosure of Reasons in Income Tax Search and Seizure : Clause 249 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Evolution of Tax Enforcement : Clause 247 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 132, Income-tax Act, ...
    Quasi-Judicial Powers of Income-tax Authorities : Clause 246 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sectio...
    Transformation of Tax Jurisdiction : Clause 245 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 130 of the...
    Legal Safeguards and Procedural Continuity under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 244 of Income Tax Bi...
    Modernizing the Statutory Framework for Jurisdictional Transfers and Natural Justice : Clause 243 of...
    Legal and Administrative Framework Determining the Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers : Clause 242 o...
    Jurisdictional Architecture under the income tax : Clause 241 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Secti...
    Statutory Foundations of the Taxpayer's Charter : Clause 240 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sectio...
    Power to issue instruction for the purpose of the proper administration of this Act : Clause 239 of ...
    Administrative Hierarchy under the Income Tax Law : Clause 238 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Statutory Framework for Appointment of Income-tax Authorities : Clause 237 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Power to call for information: targeted verification notices enable centralized processing while raising data privacy and procedural safeguard concerns.
    Clause 259 empowers a prescribed income tax authority to issue notices to any person to furnish information useful for or relevant to verifying information already in the authority's possession, requiring specification of form, manner and time. Sub clause (2) permits processing and utilisation of received information under a scheme to be notified under section 260, indicating standardized, centralized data handling while leaving procedural safeguards, definition of "proceeding," and privacy protections to the forthcoming scheme.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Power to collect information: authorised tax officers may require prescribed business records during business hours with non-removal safeguards.
    Clause 254 empowers designated income-tax officers to enter premises where a business or profession is carried on during business hours and require proprietors, employees or other persons to furnish prescribed information, while expressly prohibiting removal of books, documents, cash, stock or valuable articles. The power is linked to subordinate rules that prescribe the form and content of information, limits activity to collection (not search or seizure), and includes specified ranks and authorised inspectors subject to delegation and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Survey powers modernisation expands access to digital records while preserving timing limits and prior approval safeguards.
    Clause 253 expands survey powers to include computer systems, electronic media and virtual digital space, permits entry to any place where business is carried on or where records are kept, and obliges persons present to provide access and technical assistance. It limits entry hours, restricts removal of assets, authorises marking, extracts, oath-recorded statements, time limited impounding with recorded reasons and inventories, mandates prior senior approval for surveys and allows enforcement measures for non-cooperation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Power to call for information enables tax authorities to require verified data from wide categories to support tax enquiries.
    Clause 252 confers an expansive authority on specified income-tax officers to require verified information, accounts, and returns from a wide range of persons and intermediaries - including banks, firms, HUFs, trustees, assessees in relation to specified payments, and dealers/brokers/exchanges - to support enquiries, assessments, investigations and international information-exchange, while prescribing approval safeguards where no proceedings are pending and authorising prescribed forms and verification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Application of seized assets: statute permits AO to appropriate assets for tax recovery while preserving release safeguards.
    Clause 250 authorises the Assessing Officer to apply assets seized or requisitioned towards tax, penalty and interest liabilities (excluding advance tax), covering liabilities under the new Act, the Income tax Act and the Black Money Act. It preserves application of money first, permits appropriation and sale of non monetary assets as prescribed, and allows other recovery modes. Assets may be released on application within thirty days subject to AO satisfaction and senior officer approval and must be released within 120 days; excess assets must be returned and interest is payable on prolonged retention under a specified formula.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Non-disclosure of reason to believe or suspect limits appellate access while preserving investigative secrecy in tax searches.
    Clause 249 bars disclosure of the reason to believe or reason to suspect recorded by income-tax authorities under sections 247 and 248 to any person, authority, or the Appellate Tribunal, thereby insulating the subjective satisfaction that authorises search, seizure, or requisition from appellate scrutiny while leaving constitutional courts able to review reasons in appropriate proceedings.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Requisition powers enable tax authorities to obtain material held by other agencies for tax proceedings.
    Clause 248 authorises a senior approving authority, on forming a reason to believe that summoned books, documents, electronic records or assets are in another authority's custody or will not be produced, to empower specified officers to requisition such material; on delivery the material is treated as if seized, invoking seizure related procedural safeguards while allowing the original authority to retain material until it is no longer necessary for its own proceedings.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Retention limits on seized materials ensure time-bound return and supervised copying rights under the proposed income tax clause.
    Clause 251 governs copying, extraction, retention and release of seized books, documents and electronic records, requiring transfer to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer where necessary, preserving a supervised right to make copies or extracts on application, and imposing a default retention period with extensions only on recorded reasons and higher approval; an absolute cap prohibits retention beyond thirty days after completion of all proceedings, and affected persons may object to continued retention before the Board which must hear them.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Non-disclosure of reasons protects search and seizure confidentiality while limiting appellate access and focusing review on procedural defects.
    Clause 249 creates an absolute statutory bar on disclosure of the "reason to believe" or "reason to suspect" recorded for authorising searches and seizures, preventing disclosure to any person, authority, or the Appellate Tribunal. It preserves the requirement to record reasons and follow procedures but confines challenges to procedural defects, manifest arbitrariness, or jurisdictional absence; constitutional courts may still examine reasons in camera in exceptional cases of mala fides or lack of jurisdiction.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Search and seizure powers modernized to encompass electronic records, provisional attachment, and expanded evidentiary presumptions.
    Clause 247 modernises search and seizure for income tax enforcement by explicitly covering electronic records and undisclosed foreign assets, authorising entry, search, extraction, seizure or prohibitory orders, requisitioning technical assistance, and provisional attachment subject to prior approval and recorded reasons, while retaining the reason to believe standard and rebuttable statutory presumptions regarding ownership and authenticity of seized material.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Quasi judicial powers enable tax authorities to compel discovery, attendance, and document production with procedural safeguards.
    Clause 246 vests specified income tax authorities with civil court-equivalent powers for discovery, inspection, compulsory attendance, production of books and documents, examination on oath, and issuance of commissions; permits exercise of those powers in the absence of pending proceedings where there is a reason to suspect or by Board notification; authorises impounding of produced documents subject to recorded reasons, a limited retention period excluding holidays, and sanctioned extensions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless jurisdiction transforms tax administration by institutionalizing remote assessment and team-based dynamic jurisdiction.
    Clause 245 creates a statutory Scheme for faceless jurisdiction, authorising the Central Government to operate specified income-tax powers and functions remotely, including vesting jurisdiction in assessing officers, transferring cases, and ensuring continuity on change of incumbency; it permits notifications to modify Act provisions to implement the Scheme and requires such notifications to be laid before Parliament, balancing administrative flexibility with concerns about the scope of delegated legislation and safeguards for procedural fairness.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Change of incumbent of an office: successor may continue proceedings but assessee can demand reopening or rehearing.
    Clause 244 provides that when an income-tax authority ceases to exercise jurisdiction and is succeeded by another, the successor may continue the proceeding from the stage left by the predecessor, and before such continuation the assessee may demand that the previous proceeding or any part thereof be reopened or that the assessee be reheard before any assessment order is passed.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Power to transfer cases: modernised transfer framework preserves opportunity to be heard while enabling cross jurisdictional transfers.
    Clause 243 empowers designated senior income tax authorities to transfer any "case"-defined to include pending, completed and future proceedings-among Assessing Officers within or across jurisdictions; transfers between different authorities require agreement or, failing that, Board intervention. The clause mandates, where practicable, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and recording of reasons, exempts intra city/locality transfers from prior hearing, permits transfers at any stage without re issuing notices, and consolidates authority designations under the term "specified income tax authority."
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer jurisdiction clarified: territorial nexus, strict time bars and internal administrative resolution govern assessment authority.
    The clause anchors AO jurisdiction to the taxpayer's principal place of business, profession, or residence and empowers a specified income-tax authority to determine jurisdictional questions, with escalation to the Board where multiple authorities are involved. It mandates strict time limits for raising jurisdictional objections linked to notice service or assessment stages, requires AO referral of unresolved objections before completing assessment, and preserves AO powers over income arising within their area despite jurisdictional disputes.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Centralized jurisdiction and delegation: Board directions reallocate tax authorities' powers, shaping jurisdictional clarity and administrative flexibility.
    Clause 241 vests income-tax authorities with powers exercisable in accordance with directions issued by the Board, permits higher authorities to exercise functions of lower authorities, authorizes delegated written orders for subordinates, and sets jurisdictional criteria including territorial area, persons, classes of income and cases. It enables the Board to issue general or special orders empowering specified senior officers to perform others' functions, contains deeming provisions treating references to the Assessing Officer as references to substituted officers and removes certain approval requirements, and expands notification powers to prescribe the manner of returns and designate responsible authorities.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Taxpayer's Charter mandated: statutory duty to adopt a charter, but enforceability and remedies remain undefined.
    Clause 240 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 119A of the Income-tax Act require the Central Board of Direct Taxes to adopt and declare a Taxpayer's Charter and empower the Board to issue orders, instructions, directions or guidelines for its administration. Both provisions mandate adoption while leaving substantive content, enforceability, remedies, review, and stakeholder consultation to the Board's discretion, creating interpretive issues concerning legal status, variability of protections, and mechanisms for accountability.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Administrative instruction power guides tax authorities, subject to non interference in individual cases and parliamentary oversight.
    Clause 239 grants the Board a broad administrative instruction power to issue binding orders and directions to income tax authorities for uniform administration, subject to safeguards: it cannot direct outcomes in individual cases or interfere with appellate discretion. The clause permits targeted interventions-general or special orders for assessment and collection, condonation of belated claims by non appellate authorities, and relaxation of deduction requirements where default is beyond the assessee's control and compliance occurs before completion of assessment-and requires reasons and parliamentary laying of certain relaxation orders.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Control of tax authorities: Board may notify subordination of income-tax authorities, affecting jurisdiction and publication standards.
    Clause 238 and Section 118 empower the Board to issue notifications directing that specified income-tax authorities be subordinate to other specified authorities; this confers broad administrative control over hierarchies and supervision while remaining subject to administrative-law limits. A key textual difference is Clause 238's omission of an explicit requirement for publication in the Official Gazette, raising questions about the formal mode of notification, transparency, and enforceability that subordinate rules or judicial interpretation should address.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Appointment of income-tax authorities: Central Government retains primary power with controlled delegation and service-rule safeguards.
    Clause 237 vests primary appointment authority for income-tax authorities in the Central Government while authorising delegation to the Board and specified senior officers for appointments below Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, and permits authorised income-tax authorities to appoint executive or ministerial staff, all subject to rules and orders regulating conditions of service and Board authorisation.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST Act

      21 August, 2024

      Contents
      Acts
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Deciphering High Court Judgment on Maintainability of Appeal under GST Act

      Reported as:

      2024 (2) TMI 1069 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

      Introduction

      This article provides a comprehensive analysis of a recent judgment delivered by the High Court (HC) regarding the maintainability of an appeal u/s 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). The court examined the interplay between the limitation period prescribed u/s 107 of the GST Act and the applicability of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the extension of the prescribed period in certain circumstances.

      Arguments Presented

      The petitioner's counsel argued that although the appeal u/s 107 of the GST Act was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be applicable. This argument was based on a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked since Section 107 of the GST Act does not expressly or impliedly exclude its application.

      Discussions and Findings of the Court

      Exclusion of the Limitation Act in Special Statutes

      The court referred to its previous judgment in M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation Versus Commissioner (Appeals) And Another - 2024 (2) TMI 1214 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, wherein it had relied on the Supreme Court judgments in SINGH ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR - 2007 (12) TMI 11 - Supreme Court, and Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Versus M/s Hongo India (P) Ltd. & Anr. - 2009 (3) TMI 31 - Supreme Court. The court categorically held that the Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code, and Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism that has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act.

      Strict Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes

      The court emphasized that the provisions of a fiscal statute, such as the GST Act, must be strictly construed and interpreted. It referred to the judgments of the Kerala High Court in Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By ITS Managing Director Sri. M.O. Joseph Versus The Additional Commissioner Headquarters (Appeals) , State Tax Officer, Taxpayer Services Circle, Cochin - 2023 (6) TMI 941 - KERALA HIGH COURT and its own judgment in M/s Garg Enterprises Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others - 2024 (1) TMI 1207 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, which reiterated the principle that the GST Act is a special statute and a self-contained code, and the Limitation Act will not apply.

      Rationale behind Exclusion of the Limitation Act

      The court highlighted the significance of limitation provisions in taxing statutes like the GST Act. These provisions ensure timely resolution of disputes, promote efficiency and fairness in tax administration, and facilitate effective tax compliance. The court emphasized that Section 107 of the GST Act operates as a complete code, explicitly delineating limitation periods for filing appeals and implicitly excluding the application of general limitation provisions such as Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

      Analysis and Decision by the Court

      The court analyzed the conflicting interpretations concerning the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the context of Section 107 of the GST Act. It considered the rationale behind the exclusion of the Limitation Act in certain special statutes, particularly in the context of taxation, where strict procedural requirements and time-bound deadlines are necessary for expeditious resolution of tax disputes and revenue certainty.

      The court rejected the judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the matter of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons, stating that it failed to adequately consider the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Singh Enterprises and Hongo India, and hence, the said judgment is of no precedential value.

      Ultimately, the court dismissed the present writ petition, holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation, as it was filed approximately 66 days beyond the date of limitation, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be invoked to condone the delay.

      Doctrine or Legal Principle Discussed

      The judgment primarily dealt with the doctrine of strict interpretation of fiscal statutes and the exclusion of the general Limitation Act in the context of special statutes like the GST Act, which have their own specific limitation provisions tailored to expedite the resolution of tax-related matters.

      Comprehensive Summary of the Judgment

      The High Court, in this judgment, upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal u/s 107 of the GST Act on the ground of limitation. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be applicable to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The court emphasized that the GST Act is a special statute and a self-contained code, and Section 107 has an inbuilt mechanism that impliedly excludes the application of the Limitation Act.

      The court highlighted the significance of limitation provisions in taxing statutes like the GST Act, which are designed to ensure timely resolution of disputes, promote efficiency and fairness in tax administration, and facilitate effective tax compliance. The court relied on authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and judgments of other High Courts to reinforce the principle that fiscal statutes must be strictly interpreted, and general limitation provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone delays in filing appeals under specific limitation provisions of special statutes like the GST Act.

      The court rejected the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons, which had held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be applied to appeals u/s 107 of the GST Act, stating that it failed to adequately consider the relevant Supreme Court precedents.

      In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation and affirming the principle that the specific limitation provisions under the GST Act operate as a complete code, excluding the application of general limitation provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

       

       


      Full Text:

      2024 (2) TMI 1069 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax