Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 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 HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, holding that the petition challenging an ex facie jurisdictional order is not maintainable in the absence of pleadings justifying waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. The court emphasized that the statutory regime, including pre-deposit, must be adhered to and alternative remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. Reliance on precedents confirmed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the efficacious alternate remedy available under the statutory framework. This decision underscores the principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies, especially where the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction and time limitations are applicable.
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, holding that the petition challenging an ex facie jurisdictional order is not maintainable in the absence of pleadings justifying waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. The court emphasized that the statutory regime, including pre-deposit, must be adhered to and alternative remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. Reliance on precedents confirmed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the efficacious alternate remedy available under the statutory framework. This decision underscores the principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies, especially where the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction and time limitations are applicable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
