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 challenging a suo motu revision order by an Additional Commissioner under s.23(4)(a) of the OST Act, holding the Additional Commissioner validly exercised delegated revisionary power and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to re-initiate revision once such delegated power was exercised. By virtue of the non-obstante clause in s.23(4)(d) and the delegation scheme under s.3/Rule 3, any remedy lies by way of appeal to the Commissioner under s.23(4)(c)(ii). The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order dated 31 May 2025 before the Commissioner and may raise all available grounds; the writ petition was disposed.
The HC dismissed the writ challenging a suo motu revision order by an Additional Commissioner under s.23(4)(a) of the OST Act, holding the Additional Commissioner validly exercised delegated revisionary power and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to re-initiate revision once such delegated power was exercised. By virtue of the non-obstante clause in s.23(4)(d) and the delegation scheme under s.3/Rule 3, any remedy lies by way of appeal to the Commissioner under s.23(4)(c)(ii). The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order dated 31 May 2025 before the Commissioner and may raise all available grounds; the writ petition was disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
