Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 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 petition challenging an ex parte order under Section 74 UPGST Act, holding the challenge misconceived and liable to be rejected. The court found the appellant pursued successive writs to evade the pre-deposit required by Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, failed to seek exemption from pre-deposit before the appellate authority and the apex court, and did not prosecute the statutory appeal within limitations. Applying principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the HC held the remedy of appeal and exemption were always available and deliberately not pursued; accordingly the petition is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and procedural abuse.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging an ex parte order under Section 74 UPGST Act, holding the challenge misconceived and liable to be rejected. The court found the appellant pursued successive writs to evade the pre-deposit required by Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, failed to seek exemption from pre-deposit before the appellate authority and the apex court, and did not prosecute the statutory appeal within limitations. Applying principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the HC held the remedy of appeal and exemption were always available and deliberately not pursued; accordingly the petition is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and procedural abuse.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
