Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
