Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 because the challenge to the search authorization, stock discrepancy assessment, and penalty order involved disputed factual matters better examined under the GST statutory framework. Applying the rule that an aggrieved person should ordinarily pursue the remedy created by statute, the Court held that an effective appellate remedy was available and interference in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted. The petitioner was left to file an appeal and was granted liberty to raise all legal and factual grounds, including a request for condonation of delay for the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition.
The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 because the challenge to the search authorization, stock discrepancy assessment, and penalty order involved disputed factual matters better examined under the GST statutory framework. Applying the rule that an aggrieved person should ordinarily pursue the remedy created by statute, the Court held that an effective appellate remedy was available and interference in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted. The petitioner was left to file an appeal and was granted liberty to raise all legal and factual grounds, including a request for condonation of delay for the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
