Personal hearing requirements in GST adjudication were satisfied by prior opportunities and written submissions; appellate limitation received writ-pe...
Interactive flat panels meeting automatic data processing conditions are distinguished from monitors, while later classification clarifications apply ...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
761 to 780 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.