Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
