Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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.