Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
A show cause notice issued in disregard of a binding and unchallenged advance ruling was treated as non-est because the ruling had attained finality between the parties and remained operative under the CGST framework. The Court held that, where the invalidity of the notice was apparent on the face of the record, the petitioner was not required to first reply to the notice or pursue the statutory remedy. It therefore exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and quashed the notice as lacking foundation.
A show cause notice issued in disregard of a binding and unchallenged advance ruling was treated as non-est because the ruling had attained finality between the parties and remained operative under the CGST framework. The Court held that, where the invalidity of the notice was apparent on the face of the record, the petitioner was not required to first reply to the notice or pursue the statutory remedy. It therefore exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and quashed the notice as lacking foundation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
