Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2026 (4) TMI 1813

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tiorarified mandamus or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring that the Respondents had no jurisdiction to call for records of the Petitioners for a transaction executed prior to GST regime and to go into the legality and propriety and to set aside the impugned Order dated 06th February 2025. b. For a declaration that the impugned Order dated 6th February 2025 is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice hence the Order dated 6th February 2025 is non est and inoperative in law; c. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ordering and directing the Respondent No.1 by himself, his subor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Developer. On 19th May 2018, a decree rendered by the Civil Court recognized the settlement agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the Developer. iii. On 13th January 2025 and 17th January 2025, show cause notices were issued to the Petitioner, asking him to show cause as to why Goods and Services Tax (GST) should not be payable by the Petitioner in respect of the Joint Development Agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the Developer dated 11th March 2011. iv. Thereafter, on 5th February 2025, Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order, seeking to raise a demand of Rs. 6,30,86,279/- payable by the Petitioner, disregarding the legal and factual submissions made by the Petitioner inasmuch as it sought t....