Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 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 writ petitions seeking mandamus to compel inclusion of petrol and diesel within the GST regime, holding that fixation of an effective date is a policy decision vested in the GST Council and not a justiciable right of citizens. The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Council to set a date, as no statutory or constitutional right entitles petitioners to command that policy outcome under Article 279A. Reliance on authorities concerning statutory professional rights was distinguished. Because the subject matter is squarely within the GST Council's policy domain, judicial interference by way of mandamus was declined and the petitions were dismissed.
The HC dismissed writ petitions seeking mandamus to compel inclusion of petrol and diesel within the GST regime, holding that fixation of an effective date is a policy decision vested in the GST Council and not a justiciable right of citizens. The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Council to set a date, as no statutory or constitutional right entitles petitioners to command that policy outcome under Article 279A. Reliance on authorities concerning statutory professional rights was distinguished. Because the subject matter is squarely within the GST Council's policy domain, judicial interference by way of mandamus was declined and the petitions were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
