Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
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 
