Limitation for consequential assessments runs from prescribed authority receipt, while verified purchases cannot be disallowed merely for unanswered s...
Higher depreciation for qualifying commercial vehicles, exempt-income disallowance, research deduction verification, and club-expense treatment clarif...
Charitable registration renewal cannot become an assessment of receipts, profitability or annual exemption compliance, requiring renewal and donation ...
AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined against a show cause notice and consequential order under section 74 of the CGST Act because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under section 107 read with Rule 109A. The Court held that challenges requiring examination of the corrigendum, the underlying material, and the nature of the correction involved factual appreciation and therefore did not fall within the limited certiorari jurisdiction. Mere disagreement with the adjudicating authority's conclusions was insufficient to bypass the appellate remedy. The Court also noted that recognised exceptional grounds such as breach of fundamental rights, natural justice violations, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires were not made out on the material before it, and it expressed no opinion on the merits.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined against a show cause notice and consequential order under section 74 of the CGST Act because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under section 107 read with Rule 109A. The Court held that challenges requiring examination of the corrigendum, the underlying material, and the nature of the correction involved factual appreciation and therefore did not fall within the limited certiorari jurisdiction. Mere disagreement with the adjudicating authority's conclusions was insufficient to bypass the appellate remedy. The Court also noted that recognised exceptional grounds such as breach of fundamental rights, natural justice violations, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires were not made out on the material before it, and it expressed no opinion on the merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
