Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
