Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96177 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.