TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: (i) Whether the purported affidavit filed on behalf of the Board could be accepted as a valid document in the proceedings; (ii) Whether exemption from personal appearance before the Tribunal could be granted on the facts stated.
Issue (i): Whether the purported affidavit filed on behalf of the Board could be accepted as a valid document in the proceedings.
Analysis: The affidavit was found to bear inconsistent dates of verification and notarisation. It also did not contain proper depositions, and the annexures were unsigned and unauthenticated. The Tribunal applied the requirement that an affidavit must be duly sworn and properly verified before it can be acted upon in judicial proceedings.
Conclusion: The purported affidavit was held to be invalid and no cognizance could be taken of it.
Issue (ii): Whether exemption from personal appearance before the Tribunal could be granted on the facts stated.
Analysis: The request for exemption was unsupported by any valid or specific reason, and the explanation that the applicant was merely preoccupied was found unsatisfactory. In the context of the Tribunal's power to require proper assistance and evidence for effective adjudication, the explanation did not justify exemption.
Conclusion: Exemption from personal appearance was declined and personal appearance was directed.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the defective affidavit, declined the request for exemption from appearance, and required personal appearance for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A court or tribunal may refuse to act on an affidavit that is not properly sworn and verified, and may require personal appearance where the explanation for exemption is unsatisfactory and necessary assistance is required for adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
