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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
An efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars recourse to Article 226, and the natural justice exception applies only where denial of hearing is shown on the facts. The Court found that the petitioner had been served with the show cause notice, given time to reply, and granted further extension, but filed no reply or material showing denial of hearing; the writ challenge was therefore not maintainable. It also held that completion of audit under Section 65 does not divest the proper officer of jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 73, because the statutory scheme contemplates such action where audit reveals tax liability or irregular input tax credit. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy.
An efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars recourse to Article 226, and the natural justice exception applies only where denial of hearing is shown on the facts. The Court found that the petitioner had been served with the show cause notice, given time to reply, and granted further extension, but filed no reply or material showing denial of hearing; the writ challenge was therefore not maintainable. It also held that completion of audit under Section 65 does not divest the proper officer of jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 73, because the statutory scheme contemplates such action where audit reveals tax liability or irregular input tax credit. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
