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...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
