Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
The HC declined to entertain the writ petition because an effective statutory appeal remedy before the CGST Appellate Tribunal was available. It noted that the Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act had started functioning and that, under the notified extension, appeals against orders communicated before 01.04.2026 could be filed up to 30.06.2026. As the impugned order-in-appeal fell within that category, the petitioner could raise the same grounds before the Tribunal. The petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy with liberty to file the appeal within the extended period.
The HC declined to entertain the writ petition because an effective statutory appeal remedy before the CGST Appellate Tribunal was available. It noted that the Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act had started functioning and that, under the notified extension, appeals against orders communicated before 01.04.2026 could be filed up to 30.06.2026. As the impugned order-in-appeal fell within that category, the petitioner could raise the same grounds before the Tribunal. The petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy with liberty to file the appeal within the extended period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
