Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
