Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
