Infrastructure facility: energy-efficient public lighting held integral to road projects, qualifying the operator as a developer and eligible for dedu...
Fourth Proviso to Section 153A: extended-period inquiry requires a reasonable, material-based satisfaction that escaped income likely exceeds the thre...
Article 226 writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily supplant an efficacious statutory appeal where the petitioner, by fault, disabled itself from filing the statutory remedy; failure to show sufficient cause for delay in instituting the appeal justified refusal to exercise discretionary writ relief. The adjudication cancelling GST registration was not set aside for breach of natural justice because show cause notices and opportunities to be heard were issued and the petitioner neither responded nor demonstrated non service; a bare allegation of ex parte decision contradicted the record. Petition dismissed for failure to bypass the alternate statutory remedy and to establish procedural unfairness.
Article 226 writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily supplant an efficacious statutory appeal where the petitioner, by fault, disabled itself from filing the statutory remedy; failure to show sufficient cause for delay in instituting the appeal justified refusal to exercise discretionary writ relief. The adjudication cancelling GST registration was not set aside for breach of natural justice because show cause notices and opportunities to be heard were issued and the petitioner neither responded nor demonstrated non service; a bare allegation of ex parte decision contradicted the record. Petition dismissed for failure to bypass the alternate statutory remedy and to establish procedural unfairness.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.