Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an appellate remedy because the challenge alleged violation of natural justice through a non-speaking order. The High Court held that the alternative remedy rule is not absolute and does not bar writ intervention where reasons are absent, jurisdiction is lacking, vires is questioned, or fundamental rights are implicated. Here, the adjudicating authority had noted receipt of the reply but failed to deal with its contents or the supporting documents, and gave no reasons for rejection. The GST demand order was therefore set aside as a non-speaking order, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after personal hearing and a reasoned decision.
Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an appellate remedy because the challenge alleged violation of natural justice through a non-speaking order. The High Court held that the alternative remedy rule is not absolute and does not bar writ intervention where reasons are absent, jurisdiction is lacking, vires is questioned, or fundamental rights are implicated. Here, the adjudicating authority had noted receipt of the reply but failed to deal with its contents or the supporting documents, and gave no reasons for rejection. The GST demand order was therefore set aside as a non-speaking order, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after personal hearing and a reasoned decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.