Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
