Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging demand on alleged fraudulent availment of ITC, holding that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised in such matters involving complex factual disputes, voluminous evidence and detailed departmental orders. The Court rejected the plea of violation of natural justice, noting that notices were served and reply was filed by the petitioner. Following its earlier decision relating to the same impugned order, HC directed the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy under s.107 CGST Act. If the appeal is filed with requisite pre-deposit by 5 January 2026, it shall be heard on merits without being treated as time-barred.
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging demand on alleged fraudulent availment of ITC, holding that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised in such matters involving complex factual disputes, voluminous evidence and detailed departmental orders. The Court rejected the plea of violation of natural justice, noting that notices were served and reply was filed by the petitioner. Following its earlier decision relating to the same impugned order, HC directed the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy under s.107 CGST Act. If the appeal is filed with requisite pre-deposit by 5 January 2026, it shall be heard on merits without being treated as time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
