Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves a review petition filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to recall an order that dismissed an appeal due to the absence of substantial questions of law. The court held that a review application is maintainable for reasons such as the discovery of new evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The review power is distinct from appellate power and cannot be used to rehash old arguments. The court cited legal precedents to emphasize that a decision can only be reviewed if it contains an error evident on the face of the record, not merely because it is erroneous. Ultimately, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record to justify interfering with the impugned order.
The case involves a review petition filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to recall an order that dismissed an appeal due to the absence of substantial questions of law. The court held that a review application is maintainable for reasons such as the discovery of new evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The review power is distinct from appellate power and cannot be used to rehash old arguments. The court cited legal precedents to emphasize that a decision can only be reviewed if it contains an error evident on the face of the record, not merely because it is erroneous. Ultimately, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record to justify interfering with the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
