Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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.