Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised in tax matters where an efficacious statutory appeal exists, and the petitioner's challenges to classification, exemption, annuity receipts, composite supply, notifications and circulars were held to fall within the appellate framework. The Court found no exceptional ground such as patent lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice, noting that the petitioner had participated in adjudication and was heard. It also held that the Additional Director, DGGI, and the Additional Commissioner, CGST, were validly empowered as proper officers under the statutory notifications to issue the notice and adjudicate it. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised in tax matters where an efficacious statutory appeal exists, and the petitioner's challenges to classification, exemption, annuity receipts, composite supply, notifications and circulars were held to fall within the appellate framework. The Court found no exceptional ground such as patent lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice, noting that the petitioner had participated in adjudication and was heard. It also held that the Additional Director, DGGI, and the Additional Commissioner, CGST, were validly empowered as proper officers under the statutory notifications to issue the notice and adjudicate it. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.