Jurisdictional validity: notice issued by a non jurisdictional officer invalidates reassessment where no formal transfer or independent verification o...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5541 to 5560 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court declined to decide substantive merits of alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit because an efficacious alternative remedy by statutory appeal under Section 107 and Rule 109A remained available and unexhausted, applying the principle that writ jurisdiction should not supplant the statutory appellate forum; petitioner was left free to pursue that remedy. The court also held, following Ambika Traders (SC), that notices under the assessment provisions may consolidate multiple financial years where the statute permits a notice 'for any period' or 'for such periods', and found no reason to quash the impugned proceedings; writ petition dismissed.
The High Court declined to decide substantive merits of alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit because an efficacious alternative remedy by statutory appeal under Section 107 and Rule 109A remained available and unexhausted, applying the principle that writ jurisdiction should not supplant the statutory appellate forum; petitioner was left free to pursue that remedy. The court also held, following Ambika Traders (SC), that notices under the assessment provisions may consolidate multiple financial years where the statute permits a notice 'for any period' or 'for such periods', and found no reason to quash the impugned proceedings; writ petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
