Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
High Court directs re-testing of Calcite Powder samples for substantial justice The High Court of Allahabad directed respondent no.2 to consider and decide on the petitioner's application for re-testing of 'Calcite Powder' samples by ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
High Court directs re-testing of Calcite Powder samples for substantial justice
The High Court of Allahabad directed respondent no.2 to consider and decide on the petitioner's application for re-testing of "Calcite Powder" samples by a different laboratory within a specified timeframe. The court emphasized the importance of substantial justice and ordered all consequential actions to be taken accordingly, without delving into the legality of re-testing at that stage. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for a fair consideration of the petitioner's request.
Issues: 1. Request for re-testing of samples of "Calcite Powder" by a laboratory other than the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi.
Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad addressed the issue of re-testing of samples of "Calcite Powder" requested by the petitioner. The petitioner sought to have the samples tested by a laboratory other than the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. The court noted the dissatisfaction expressed by the petitioner regarding the testing conducted by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory. The department's counsel highlighted that re-testing could only be permitted if allowed by law and that the decision to entertain such an application for re-testing rested with the concerned authority.
The court refrained from delving into the legality of re-testing at that stage but emphasized that the interest of substantial justice required the respondent no.2 to decide on the petitioner's application without being influenced by any prior observations. The court ordered the respondent no.2 to consider and decide on the petitioner's application within a specified timeframe, following the applicable provisions. It was directed that all consequential actions be taken accordingly.
In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the aforementioned directions and observations, emphasizing the need for a fair consideration of the petitioner's request for re-testing of the samples of "Calcite Powder" by a different laboratory.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
