Tufropes Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) One fact very clearly emerges from the documents annexed to the petition and the affidavits is that the advance licences of petitioner were invalidated for direct import of relevant HDPE/P Granules / Chips and petitioner was allowed to procure the same indigenously from Reliance Industries […]
Chandra Udyog Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX (Calcutta High Court) By this writ petition petitioners have challenged the impugned order of rejection of petitioners’ claim of refund of excess balance of cash ledger being annexure P/6 to the writ petition on the basis of the show cause notice dated 10th May, 2022 as appears […]
Ela Roy Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court) Petitioner being the sister of the noticee, in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act has filed the return. Petitioner submits that she being a lay person, due to inadvertence has filed the return on behalf of her brother noticee though she had already informed the […]
JKG associates Pvt. Ltd vs union of India & Ors (Calcutta High Court) Petitioner challenges the impugned action imposing the aforesaid penalty on the ground that the same is not sustainable for the reason of non-compliance of the formalities under Regulation 17 by which respondent Commissioner of Customs was required to issue a notice in […]
Commissioner of Central TAX Vs ABB Limited (Karnataka High Court) Undisputed facts of the case are, as recorded in paragraph 6 of the show cause notice, it was issued based on the balance sheet for the year ending 2008. Thus, the contentions of the Revenue that respondents trading activity was not known to the department […]
Vekanteswara Electricals Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is to be noted here that as per Section 38 (1)(a) of the APVAT Act, 2005, a refund is to be made within 90 days from the date of claim made by the dealer. As stated above, the claim was made nearly a […]
Admittedly, no limitation is provided for filing an appeal under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956. Therefore, it can be construed, as held in the aforesaid judgments, that Article 137 of the Limitation Act would stand applicable to such cases.
Respondent cannot be presumed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of Court and waived its right to arbitration when it had reserved its right to take appropriate legal proceedings against plaintiff.
Since the petitioners are having effective and statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority, they cannot come to this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The process of law cannot be taken recourse to circumvent the due procedure prescribed in law. There is further no reason why the petitioner cannot take recourse to institution of appropriate proceedings before the competent authorities in accordance with law.
