TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Order-In-Appeal set aside for refund claim rejection due to procedural violations and natural justice breach</h1> The Bombay HC set aside the Order-In-Appeal dated 29 May 2024 regarding rejection of a refund claim. The court found that proper procedure for adducing ... Rejection of refund claim - relevance of production of the judgment of this Court - additional evidence or not - procedure for adducing additional evidence was not substantially followed - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned Order-In-Appeal dated 29 May 2024 must be set aside with liberty to the Petitioner to produce and rely upon this Court’s judgment and order dated 11 September 2023 and the Respondents must equally be allowed to rely upon the proceedings in the fresh show cause notice issued and the cancellation order dated 18 March 2024. The Appellate Authority on remand must allow the Petitioner to produce and rely upon this Court’s judgment and order dated 11 September 2023 and allow the Respondents to rely upon the proceedings in the fresh show cause notice issued to Mr. Pradhan and the order for cancellation of registration dated 18 March 2024. The Appeal must be disposed of by considering this material and all other contentions raised by the Petitioner and the defenses urged on behalf of the Respondents. ISSUES: Whether a judgment of the Court can be excluded as 'additional evidence' in appellate proceedings.Whether the Appellate Authority is obliged to consider subsequent proceedings and orders arising after a Court judgment relied upon by a party.Whether the impugned Order-In-Appeal should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration when relevant materials have been excluded. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that the production of its own judgment, which may have relevance to the case, 'could not have been shut out on the ground that the same amounts to additional evidence' and the Petitioner should have been allowed to produce it.The Court agreed that subsequent proceedings after the judgment, including a fresh show cause notice and cancellation order, are relevant and must be allowed to be produced and considered by the Appellate Authority.The impugned Order-In-Appeal dated 29 May 2024 was set aside with liberty to the Petitioner to produce and rely upon the Court's judgment and order dated 11 September 2023, and to the Respondents to rely upon subsequent proceedings and orders; the matter was remanded for fresh disposal considering all such materials. RATIONALE: The Court applied principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, emphasizing that relevant judicial pronouncements of the Court should not be excluded as additional evidence merely on procedural technicalities.The Court recognized that subsequent developments following its judgment are integral to a fair adjudication and must be considered to ensure comprehensive appellate review.This approach ensures that the Appellate Authority exercises its discretion on a complete record, respecting the 'liberty to produce and rely upon' all pertinent materials, thereby upholding the doctrine of fair hearing and just adjudication.No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the Court reaffirmed established principles regarding admissibility and consideration of evidence and judicial orders in appellate proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
