1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court upholds dismissal of writ, directs taxpayers to pursue statutory tax appeal, protects auction proceeds</h1> SC dismissed the SLP, upholding the HC's refusal to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under the ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - difference in the quantity of goods - appellants could not produce any bill of supply or tax invoice - no proof of payment either full or in part was produced - it was held by High Court that 'while affirming the order passed by the learned Single Bench and directing the appellants to file a statutory appeal within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order, it is held that upon the goods being sold and the successful bidder remitting the amount, the amount shall be retained by the department preferably in an interest bearing account and shall abide by the ultimate orders that may be passed by the appellate authority. As observed, the appellants will also be entitled to participate in the auction to be called for by the respondents authority.' HELD THAT:- There are no good ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court - SLP dismissed. The Supreme Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136, declined to interfere with the 'impugned orders passed by the High Court.' After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and examining the materials on record, the Court recorded that it found 'no good ground to interfere' with the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, thereby affirming the High Court's orders without modification or remand. The Court did not elaborate further on the factual matrix or legal issues raised, indicating that the case did not merit detailed scrutiny at the special leave stage. All pending applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the dismissal.