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...
The Chhattisgarh High Court considered the maintainability of a petition challenging an order issued u/s 73(1) of the GST Act. The court noted that the order was appealable u/s 107 of the GST Act. Referring to the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedy, the court cited the Supreme Court's stance that when statutory remedies are available, writ petitions should not be entertained. The court emphasized that the petitioner had the option to challenge the order through an appeal, and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's ability to access their email could be addressed in the appellate process. The court concluded that there were no grounds to entertain the writ petition, hence it was dismissed.
The Chhattisgarh High Court considered the maintainability of a petition challenging an order issued u/s 73(1) of the GST Act. The court noted that the order was appealable u/s 107 of the GST Act. Referring to the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedy, the court cited the Supreme Court's stance that when statutory remedies are available, writ petitions should not be entertained. The court emphasized that the petitioner had the option to challenge the order through an appeal, and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's ability to access their email could be addressed in the appellate process. The court concluded that there were no grounds to entertain the writ petition, hence it was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.