Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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.