Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A writ petition challenging a GST appellate order was not entertained because an effective statutory appeal before the now-functioning GST Appellate Tribunal was available. The Court held that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used where a specialised remedy exists, especially when the petitioner's objections concerned GST issues suited to the Tribunal's examination. No exception applied: there was no challenge to the statute's vires, no lack of jurisdiction, and no violation of natural justice because the petitioner had participated and filed a reply. The petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy, with interim protection continued until the Tribunal decides the stay application.
A writ petition challenging a GST appellate order was not entertained because an effective statutory appeal before the now-functioning GST Appellate Tribunal was available. The Court held that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used where a specialised remedy exists, especially when the petitioner's objections concerned GST issues suited to the Tribunal's examination. No exception applied: there was no challenge to the statute's vires, no lack of jurisdiction, and no violation of natural justice because the petitioner had participated and filed a reply. The petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy, with interim protection continued until the Tribunal decides the stay application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.