Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
A writ challenge to a CGST adjudication order was rejected as not maintainable because the dispute turned on disputed facts and factual inferences better suited to appellate scrutiny. The Court held that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar, but writ interference is confined to recognised exceptions such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, fundamental rights, or vires challenge. No denial of hearing was made out, as notice, personal hearing and a reply had been given. At most, the impugned order involved an error in exercise of jurisdiction, remediable in appeal. Liberty to file the statutory appeal was granted, and time spent in writ proceedings was to be counted for limitation.
A writ challenge to a CGST adjudication order was rejected as not maintainable because the dispute turned on disputed facts and factual inferences better suited to appellate scrutiny. The Court held that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar, but writ interference is confined to recognised exceptions such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, fundamental rights, or vires challenge. No denial of hearing was made out, as notice, personal hearing and a reply had been given. At most, the impugned order involved an error in exercise of jurisdiction, remediable in appeal. Liberty to file the statutory appeal was granted, and time spent in writ proceedings was to be counted for limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.