Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
