Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Writ jurisdiction was not entertained to challenge GST proceedings after the statutory appeal period had expired, because the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice and been heard, so jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice were not established. The High Court held that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass a special appellate scheme with a limited condonable period, especially in tax matters where diligence is required. In the absence of a proper explanation for delay or any patent illegality, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law and without affecting any future appeal.
Writ jurisdiction was not entertained to challenge GST proceedings after the statutory appeal period had expired, because the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice and been heard, so jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice were not established. The High Court held that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass a special appellate scheme with a limited condonable period, especially in tax matters where diligence is required. In the absence of a proper explanation for delay or any patent illegality, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law and without affecting any future appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
