https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416560 A recovery demand based on an audit objection, without prior full adjudication of entitlement to SHIS benefits, raised disputed questions on EOU status, utilisation of benefits, and limitation. The HC held that such factual and legal issues required examination of records by the competent authority and should not be decided on merits under Article 226 when a statutory mechanism for enquiry and appeal was available. Limitation also had to be assessed on the relevant facts rather than mechanically by dates alone. The writ petitions were not entertained on merits, and the petitioners were directed to raise objections before the original authority for fresh adjudication, with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy thereafter. en-us Wed, 22 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jan 2022 08:55:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416560 A recovery demand based on an audit objection, without prior full adjudication of entitlement to SHIS benefits, raised disputed questions on EOU status, utilisation of benefits, and limitation. The HC held that such factual and legal issues required examination of records by the competent authority and should not be decided on merits under Article 226 when a statutory mechanism for enquiry and appeal was available. Limitation also had to be assessed on the relevant facts rather than mechanically by dates alone. The writ petitions were not entertained on merits, and the petitioners were directed to raise objections before the original authority for fresh adjudication, with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy thereafter. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 22 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416560