Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Writ jurisdiction against a penalty order under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST law was declined on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107, since there was no breach of natural justice, no lack of jurisdiction, no vires challenge, and no established infringement of fundamental rights. The impugned order contained detailed factual findings, including doubts about the genuineness of documents and e-way bills, which required appellate fact-finding and could not be adjudicated on affidavits in writ proceedings; consequently, reliance on the 31 December 2018 circular to claim benefit under Section 129(1)(a) was not accepted. The taxpayer was relegated to statutory appeal, with directions to enable e-filing access. - HC
Writ jurisdiction against a penalty order under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST law was declined on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107, since there was no breach of natural justice, no lack of jurisdiction, no vires challenge, and no established infringement of fundamental rights. The impugned order contained detailed factual findings, including doubts about the genuineness of documents and e-way bills, which required appellate fact-finding and could not be adjudicated on affidavits in writ proceedings; consequently, reliance on the 31 December 2018 circular to claim benefit under Section 129(1)(a) was not accepted. The taxpayer was relegated to statutory appeal, with directions to enable e-filing access. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.