Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
