Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
