Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Writ jurisdiction may be invoked when the statutory appellate forum is not constituted or functional, because an aggrieved person cannot be left remediless. Once the GSTAT became functional and the appeal-filing timeline was notified, the writ court declined to retain the challenge and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy. The Court held that the absence of a functional tribunal did not waive the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8); the petitioner was required to file the appeal before GSTAT within the notified period after making the prescribed deposit. The merits of the first appellate order were not examined.
Writ jurisdiction may be invoked when the statutory appellate forum is not constituted or functional, because an aggrieved person cannot be left remediless. Once the GSTAT became functional and the appeal-filing timeline was notified, the writ court declined to retain the challenge and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy. The Court held that the absence of a functional tribunal did not waive the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8); the petitioner was required to file the appeal before GSTAT within the notified period after making the prescribed deposit. The merits of the first appellate order were not examined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
