Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
