Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's decision to relegate the appellant to the alternative remedy of replying to the show cause notices and adjudication by the statutory authority. The Department suspected availing of input tax credit on bogus invoices, prompting the issuance of an intimation u/r 86A to prevent irregular availment. Although there was a delay in issuing show cause notices, the appellant did not approach the court during that period. The court found no grounds for belated interference with the intimation under Article 226, as the appellant had the statutory recourse of adjudication after responding to the show cause notices.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's decision to relegate the appellant to the alternative remedy of replying to the show cause notices and adjudication by the statutory authority. The Department suspected availing of input tax credit on bogus invoices, prompting the issuance of an intimation u/r 86A to prevent irregular availment. Although there was a delay in issuing show cause notices, the appellant did not approach the court during that period. The court found no grounds for belated interference with the intimation under Article 226, as the appellant had the statutory recourse of adjudication after responding to the show cause notices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
