Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
A review application is maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or (iii) any other sufficient reason. The Supreme Court held that review cannot be done unless a material error manifestly apparent on the face of the order would result in miscarriage of justice. Review proceedings are strictly confined to the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A party cannot repeat old arguments under the guise of a review petition. The power of review is distinct from appellate power to correct errors. In the present case, the HC found no error apparent on the record to warrant interference with its earlier order holding that the respondent is entitled to receive original non-relied documents u/s 67(3) of CGST Act and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules 2017. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
A review application is maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or (iii) any other sufficient reason. The Supreme Court held that review cannot be done unless a material error manifestly apparent on the face of the order would result in miscarriage of justice. Review proceedings are strictly confined to the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A party cannot repeat old arguments under the guise of a review petition. The power of review is distinct from appellate power to correct errors. In the present case, the HC found no error apparent on the record to warrant interference with its earlier order holding that the respondent is entitled to receive original non-relied documents u/s 67(3) of CGST Act and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules 2017. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
