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...
Judicial review of an assessment order was conducted due to discrepancies between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner's replies were not considered, violating natural justice principles. The High Court held the order unsustainable as the petitioner's replies were not taken into account while recording conclusions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and issue a fresh order after considering the petitioner's replies and annexed documents.
Judicial review of an assessment order was conducted due to discrepancies between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner's replies were not considered, violating natural justice principles. The High Court held the order unsustainable as the petitioner's replies were not taken into account while recording conclusions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and issue a fresh order after considering the petitioner's replies and annexed documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.