TaxTMI Login
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.
Just a moment...
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.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether affidavits sworn before a Notary could be excluded from consideration in proceedings under the Act and whether the appellate authority's refusal to consider such material evidence vitiated its order.
Analysis: Section 34(6) of the Act was treated as procedural and enabling in nature. Affidavits sworn before a Notary were held not to be excluded merely because they were not sworn before an Oath Commissioner. The proper approach was one of substantial compliance, and procedural rules were to advance justice rather than defeat it. Since the affidavits filed by the tenant were material on the dispute, their exclusion on a technical ground meant that the appellate authority decided the matter on incomplete evidence. Non-consideration of material evidence affecting the root of the controversy renders the resulting finding unsustainable.
Conclusion: The affidavits sworn before a Notary could not be rejected on that technical objection, and the appellate order was vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the appellate judgment was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement regarding affidavits must be applied with substantial compliance, and non-consideration of material evidence on a mere technicality vitiates the decision.
TaxTMI 
