Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 97820 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 writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 for want of maintainability, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for inordinate delay and unjustifiably bypassed the statutory alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order dated 17 August 2024. Allegations concerning excess input tax credit in GSTR-3B vis-Ã -vis GSTR-2A did not justify invocation of discretionary writ jurisdiction absent promptness or exceptional circumstances. Applying established parameters restricting exercise of Article 226 discretion, the Court declined to exercise relief against an assessment/order capable of statutory challenge and accordingly dismissed the petition.
The HC dismissed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 for want of maintainability, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for inordinate delay and unjustifiably bypassed the statutory alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order dated 17 August 2024. Allegations concerning excess input tax credit in GSTR-3B vis-Ã -vis GSTR-2A did not justify invocation of discretionary writ jurisdiction absent promptness or exceptional circumstances. Applying established parameters restricting exercise of Article 226 discretion, the Court declined to exercise relief against an assessment/order capable of statutory challenge and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
