Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
