Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
Petitioner challenged appellate orders rejecting refund applications. HC held there are no grounds to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 as statutory appeal lies before Tribunal. Though Tribunal is not constituted, Central Government permitted filing appeal after its constitution. Since impugned orders relate to refund with no demand, pre-deposit of 20% tax demand is not required. Petition closed.
Petitioner challenged appellate orders rejecting refund applications. HC held there are no grounds to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 as statutory appeal lies before Tribunal. Though Tribunal is not constituted, Central Government permitted filing appeal after its constitution. Since impugned orders relate to refund with no demand, pre-deposit of 20% tax demand is not required. Petition closed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.