Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The petitioners' grievance, despite alleged violation of natural justice by the CGST authority for non-supply of relevant documents, must be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism. The court emphasized that it will not entertain a writ petition when an efficacious and speedy remedy exists under the statute. The time elapsed from filing the writ petition to disposal shall be excluded for the purpose of condoning any delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petition was accordingly disposed of, reinforcing the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not override specific appeal provisions.
The HC held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The petitioners' grievance, despite alleged violation of natural justice by the CGST authority for non-supply of relevant documents, must be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism. The court emphasized that it will not entertain a writ petition when an efficacious and speedy remedy exists under the statute. The time elapsed from filing the writ petition to disposal shall be excluded for the purpose of condoning any delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petition was accordingly disposed of, reinforcing the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not override specific appeal provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.