Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4819 
Join Channel 
