Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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 entertain the petition under Article 227, holding that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. The challenge concerned disallowance of input tax credit due to alleged non-application of mind and violation of natural justice principles. The court noted the petitioner failed to request copies of documents referenced in the show-cause notice and impugned order. The respondent's order considered the non-existence of suppliers and non-payment of tax by them, concluding the petitioner did not substantiate the movement of goods. Given the fraudulent GST numbers used by suppliers, the petitioner was directed to raise all grievances before the designated Appellate Authority. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability, with the petitioner relegated to the statutory remedy under Section 107.
The HC declined to entertain the petition under Article 227, holding that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. The challenge concerned disallowance of input tax credit due to alleged non-application of mind and violation of natural justice principles. The court noted the petitioner failed to request copies of documents referenced in the show-cause notice and impugned order. The respondent's order considered the non-existence of suppliers and non-payment of tax by them, concluding the petitioner did not substantiate the movement of goods. Given the fraudulent GST numbers used by suppliers, the petitioner was directed to raise all grievances before the designated Appellate Authority. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability, with the petitioner relegated to the statutory remedy under Section 107.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
