Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed by A against the adjudication order passed under S.73 of the GST Act on the ground of non-maintainability. It held that a statutory appellate remedy under S.107 was available and the appellate authority's power to condone delay is strictly confined to an additional thirty days beyond the initial three-month limitation, with no jurisdiction to extend it further. The impugned order dated 22.10.2024 was challenged only on 23.10.2025, with no sufficient cause pleaded for not availing the appellate remedy or for the belated approach to the HC. The HC found that A sought to circumvent the statutory scheme and therefore refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Arts.226/227.
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed by A against the adjudication order passed under S.73 of the GST Act on the ground of non-maintainability. It held that a statutory appellate remedy under S.107 was available and the appellate authority's power to condone delay is strictly confined to an additional thirty days beyond the initial three-month limitation, with no jurisdiction to extend it further. The impugned order dated 22.10.2024 was challenged only on 23.10.2025, with no sufficient cause pleaded for not availing the appellate remedy or for the belated approach to the HC. The HC found that A sought to circumvent the statutory scheme and therefore refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Arts.226/227.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
