Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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.