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 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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
