Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The HC dismissed a petition challenging a GST adjudication order on grounds of natural justice violations, specifically denial of cross-examination opportunity. The Court held that orders under Section 74 of the GST Act are appealable under Section 107A, providing an adequate statutory remedy for the aggrieved party. Following established legal principle, the HC's writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when specific statutory remedies exist, absent exceptional circumstances. The petitioner failed to demonstrate such exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention through writ jurisdiction. The Court determined that adequate opportunities had been provided to the petitioner to present their case, and the denial of cross-examination did not constitute a breach of natural justice principles.
The HC dismissed a petition challenging a GST adjudication order on grounds of natural justice violations, specifically denial of cross-examination opportunity. The Court held that orders under Section 74 of the GST Act are appealable under Section 107A, providing an adequate statutory remedy for the aggrieved party. Following established legal principle, the HC's writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when specific statutory remedies exist, absent exceptional circumstances. The petitioner failed to demonstrate such exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention through writ jurisdiction. The Court determined that adequate opportunities had been provided to the petitioner to present their case, and the denial of cross-examination did not constitute a breach of natural justice principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.