Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, unless there is breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to vires. In this GST dispute, the petitioners did not challenge the show cause notice at the outset and raised limitation and jurisdiction objections only after the adjudication order. The Court held those issues could be effectively raised before the appellate authority under Section 107, declined to examine the merits, and granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal, leaving all questions on limitation and jurisdiction open.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, unless there is breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to vires. In this GST dispute, the petitioners did not challenge the show cause notice at the outset and raised limitation and jurisdiction objections only after the adjudication order. The Court held those issues could be effectively raised before the appellate authority under Section 107, declined to examine the merits, and granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal, leaving all questions on limitation and jurisdiction open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.