Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Admissibility of electronic evidence controls valuation and penalty exposure; non compliant e records and statements nullify revaluation and penalties...
A writ petition challenging an order-in-original and recovery proceedings was not entertained because the petitioner had an available statutory appellate remedy with a prescribed limitation period and limited condonation, but failed to use it in time. The High Court held that Article 226 cannot ordinarily be invoked to bypass the statutory machinery where the party has disabled itself from pursuing the appellate remedy by its own default. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the Court declined writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition after finding that the permissible appellate period had already expired.
A writ petition challenging an order-in-original and recovery proceedings was not entertained because the petitioner had an available statutory appellate remedy with a prescribed limitation period and limited condonation, but failed to use it in time. The High Court held that Article 226 cannot ordinarily be invoked to bypass the statutory machinery where the party has disabled itself from pursuing the appellate remedy by its own default. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the Court declined writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition after finding that the permissible appellate period had already expired.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
