https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406811 Disputed questions on immunity from penalty and the legality of a recovery demand are not suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when resolution depends on factual examination of settlement proceedings and supporting records. The High Court's role is limited to reviewing the decision-making process, not conducting a roving inquiry into contested liability. Where a representation concerning the settlement order and recovery consequences remains unexamined, it should be considered by the competent authority on merits and in accordance with law, with interim protection against coercive recovery pending that decision. en-us Wed, 21 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406811 Disputed questions on immunity from penalty and the legality of a recovery demand are not suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when resolution depends on factual examination of settlement proceedings and supporting records. The High Court's role is limited to reviewing the decision-making process, not conducting a roving inquiry into contested liability. Where a representation concerning the settlement order and recovery consequences remains unexamined, it should be considered by the competent authority on merits and in accordance with law, with interim protection against coercive recovery pending that decision. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 21 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406811