Commodity derivatives position limits adopt revised breach penalties, broad commodity criteria, and client open-position limits based on deliverable s...
Effective hearing in GST adjudication requires actual opportunity to respond; ineffective service through a former auditor invalidated ex parte procee...
Third-party search material requires special assessment route, rendering general reassessment notices without jurisdiction when it forms the proceedin...
Transfer-pricing adjustments must be confined to international associated-enterprise transactions, while functionally dissimilar comparables remain ex...
Insolvency moratorium bars income-tax revision proceedings against corporate debtors until the moratorium ends, preserving merits for later determinat...
Page of 4897
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1141 to 1160 of 97923 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
SC dismissed the appeal, upholding HC's refusal to entertain the writ petition under Art. 226 challenging the CEGAT order. SC held that where the statute provides an equally efficacious alternative remedy before the same HC (here, a reference under s.130A of the Customs Act, 1962), the rule is to refuse writ jurisdiction and treat its exercise as an exception. The appellant's challenge was filed well beyond the limitation period for a reference; any justification for delay should have been urged in an application for condonation under the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies via s.29(2). The belated writ, lacking basic pleadings, amounted to bypassing the statutory mechanism. HC's dismissal, both on maintainability and merits, was affirmed; appeal dismissed.
SC dismissed the appeal, upholding HC's refusal to entertain the writ petition under Art. 226 challenging the CEGAT order. SC held that where the statute provides an equally efficacious alternative remedy before the same HC (here, a reference under s.130A of the Customs Act, 1962), the rule is to refuse writ jurisdiction and treat its exercise as an exception. The appellant's challenge was filed well beyond the limitation period for a reference; any justification for delay should have been urged in an application for condonation under the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies via s.29(2). The belated writ, lacking basic pleadings, amounted to bypassing the statutory mechanism. HC's dismissal, both on maintainability and merits, was affirmed; appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4897 
