Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding the impugned adjudicatory order dated 27 January 2025 has become final due to the lapse of the statutory appeal period under Section 107 CGST; no sufficient explanation justified the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The court found no gross breach of natural justice: the Adjudicating Authority considered the petitioner's filed reply and documents, and acknowledgements evidenced filing though not incontrovertible proof of attendance. On the merits, the HC concluded the petitioner colluded with a third-party supplier to fraudulently avail ineligible ITC, failed to rebut the show-cause allegations or identify the supplier, and did not cooperate in proceedings. No exceptional circumstances warranted condonation of delay or exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding the impugned adjudicatory order dated 27 January 2025 has become final due to the lapse of the statutory appeal period under Section 107 CGST; no sufficient explanation justified the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The court found no gross breach of natural justice: the Adjudicating Authority considered the petitioner's filed reply and documents, and acknowledgements evidenced filing though not incontrovertible proof of attendance. On the merits, the HC concluded the petitioner colluded with a third-party supplier to fraudulently avail ineligible ITC, failed to rebut the show-cause allegations or identify the supplier, and did not cooperate in proceedings. No exceptional circumstances warranted condonation of delay or exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
