Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Petitioner alleges compliance with pre-deposit obligations at two appellate stages and seeks relief from recovery; court directed petitioner to make representation to GST authorities proving payment and allowed authorities to verify and call for clarifications. Any sum recovered in excess of the cumulative deposits required at the two appellate stages must be refunded. Court did not determine merits and left substantive decision to the GST authorities, who may examine evidence and take an informed decision on refund and stay-related consequences.
Petitioner alleges compliance with pre-deposit obligations at two appellate stages and seeks relief from recovery; court directed petitioner to make representation to GST authorities proving payment and allowed authorities to verify and call for clarifications. Any sum recovered in excess of the cumulative deposits required at the two appellate stages must be refunded. Court did not determine merits and left substantive decision to the GST authorities, who may examine evidence and take an informed decision on refund and stay-related consequences.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
