Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The petition was dismissed by the High Court as no case was made out to depart from the usual rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies. The key reasons were: 1) An alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order, although the petitioner contended violation of principles of natural justice. 2) The petition was filed almost a year after the impugned orders, much beyond the statutory limitation period for appeal, without any explanation for the delay. While there is no limitation for filing a petition under Article 226, such petitions must be instituted within a reasonable period, and any delay is required to be explained. Since the petitioner failed to provide a justification for the inordinate delay, the High Court dismissed the petition.
The petition was dismissed by the High Court as no case was made out to depart from the usual rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies. The key reasons were: 1) An alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order, although the petitioner contended violation of principles of natural justice. 2) The petition was filed almost a year after the impugned orders, much beyond the statutory limitation period for appeal, without any explanation for the delay. While there is no limitation for filing a petition under Article 226, such petitions must be instituted within a reasonable period, and any delay is required to be explained. Since the petitioner failed to provide a justification for the inordinate delay, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
