<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 403 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774335</link>
    <description>An ex parte service tax adjudication order was challenged in writ, but the High Court emphasised that notices for personal hearing had been issued and the petitioner did not appear. Because the order was appealable, the Court held that an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available and that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked where that remedy was not pursued within time. The petitioner&#039;s delayed approach and reliance on the pandemic explanation were insufficient to displace the alternative-remedy rule. The writ petition was therefore not entertained, while the petitioner was left free to pursue the statutory appeal and raise delay-related grounds there.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=834072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 403 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774335</link>
      <description>An ex parte service tax adjudication order was challenged in writ, but the High Court emphasised that notices for personal hearing had been issued and the petitioner did not appear. Because the order was appealable, the Court held that an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available and that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked where that remedy was not pursued within time. The petitioner&#039;s delayed approach and reliance on the pandemic explanation were insufficient to displace the alternative-remedy rule. The writ petition was therefore not entertained, while the petitioner was left free to pursue the statutory appeal and raise delay-related grounds there.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>