Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
A writ petition was entertained only to the limited extent that no statutory appellate forum was then available, but the Court held that this did not permit bypassing the GST Act's appeal conditions. Once the GSTAT became functional and the appeal period was notified, the aggrieved party had to pursue the statutory remedy before that forum. The mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) was required to be strictly complied with, and writ jurisdiction could not be used to secure relaxation from that requirement. The petitioner was directed to make the deposit and file the appeal within the notified timeline, with the merits of the appellate order left open.
A writ petition was entertained only to the limited extent that no statutory appellate forum was then available, but the Court held that this did not permit bypassing the GST Act's appeal conditions. Once the GSTAT became functional and the appeal period was notified, the aggrieved party had to pursue the statutory remedy before that forum. The mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) was required to be strictly complied with, and writ jurisdiction could not be used to secure relaxation from that requirement. The petitioner was directed to make the deposit and file the appeal within the notified timeline, with the merits of the appellate order left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
