Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 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" ?
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.