Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
HC held that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown in the earlier order directing consideration of the assessee's pending rectification application and quashing the revised Form-2 under the DTVSV Scheme. The Court noted that the earlier order had already considered the material chronology, including the declaration, initial Form-2, pending rectification request, and the later revised Form-2 issued while the departmental appeal was still pending. Omission to refer to Circular No. 19/2024 did not justify review, because review cannot be used to reopen or reargue issues already decided. The petition was therefore an impermissible attempt at rehearing on merits and was dismissed.
HC held that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown in the earlier order directing consideration of the assessee's pending rectification application and quashing the revised Form-2 under the DTVSV Scheme. The Court noted that the earlier order had already considered the material chronology, including the declaration, initial Form-2, pending rectification request, and the later revised Form-2 issued while the departmental appeal was still pending. Omission to refer to Circular No. 19/2024 did not justify review, because review cannot be used to reopen or reargue issues already decided. The petition was therefore an impermissible attempt at rehearing on merits and was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.