Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 4881 
