Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Writ jurisdiction against a GST demand was not considered appropriate where allegations of fraudulent registration, identity theft and forgery created disputed factual questions requiring evidence. As the impugned order addressed the taxpayers' submissions after a hearing, its factual findings were suitable for review by the statutory appellate authority. The High Court therefore declined to examine the merits and directed the taxpayers to pursue the available statutory appeal, with liberty to seek exclusion of the time spent prosecuting the writ petition for limitation purposes.
Writ jurisdiction against a GST demand was not considered appropriate where allegations of fraudulent registration, identity theft and forgery created disputed factual questions requiring evidence. As the impugned order addressed the taxpayers' submissions after a hearing, its factual findings were suitable for review by the statutory appellate authority. The High Court therefore declined to examine the merits and directed the taxpayers to pursue the available statutory appeal, with liberty to seek exclusion of the time spent prosecuting the writ petition for limitation purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
