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 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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
