Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
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...
The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order. The petitioner challenged the assessment order citing limitation and violation of principles of natural justice. However, the Court held that whether the extended period of limitation applies and principles of natural justice were violated are mixed questions of fact and law best examined by the Appellate Authority. No serious jurisdictional error warranting interference by the High Court was established. The alleged procedural improprieties can be adequately addressed by the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court relegated the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy.
The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order. The petitioner challenged the assessment order citing limitation and violation of principles of natural justice. However, the Court held that whether the extended period of limitation applies and principles of natural justice were violated are mixed questions of fact and law best examined by the Appellate Authority. No serious jurisdictional error warranting interference by the High Court was established. The alleged procedural improprieties can be adequately addressed by the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court relegated the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
