Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 dismissed the petitioner's writ petition for relief against an adjudication order under the GST Act, holding the challenge barred by delay and laches. The court found the petitioner failed to explain an approximately 11-month delay in seeking writ relief against an order dated 21 August 2024 and declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction, notwithstanding that Section 73(10) limits adjudication timeframes. The HC observed the availability of alternative statutory remedies under the GST regime and directed that factual and legal disputes concerning understatement in GSTR-3B vis-Ã -vis GSTR-1 be agitated before the competent adjudicating authority. Petition dismissed; no interference granted.
The HC dismissed the petitioner's writ petition for relief against an adjudication order under the GST Act, holding the challenge barred by delay and laches. The court found the petitioner failed to explain an approximately 11-month delay in seeking writ relief against an order dated 21 August 2024 and declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction, notwithstanding that Section 73(10) limits adjudication timeframes. The HC observed the availability of alternative statutory remedies under the GST regime and directed that factual and legal disputes concerning understatement in GSTR-3B vis-Ã -vis GSTR-1 be agitated before the competent adjudicating authority. Petition dismissed; no interference granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.