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...
Res judicata principle applies - Department of Expenditure (DOE) not an 'enterprise' u/s 2(h) of Competition Act, 2002 - Office Memorandum (OM) issued by DOE not an agreement u/s 3(4) and Section 3(1) of the Act. Supreme Court held DOE cannot be considered an enterprise regarding OM dated 24.03.2006. Appellant approached Respondent again with same facts, parties and prayer which was previously declined. Appellate Authority upheld earlier order, no further appeal filed. Legal maxim 'nemo debet lis vexari pro una et eadem causa' applies - no man should be vexed twice for same cause. Issues cannot be re-agitated as two courts already held DOE not an enterprise and OM not an agreement violating Section 3(4). Appeal dismissed.
Res judicata principle applies - Department of Expenditure (DOE) not an 'enterprise' u/s 2(h) of Competition Act, 2002 - Office Memorandum (OM) issued by DOE not an agreement u/s 3(4) and Section 3(1) of the Act. Supreme Court held DOE cannot be considered an enterprise regarding OM dated 24.03.2006. Appellant approached Respondent again with same facts, parties and prayer which was previously declined. Appellate Authority upheld earlier order, no further appeal filed. Legal maxim 'nemo debet lis vexari pro una et eadem causa' applies - no man should be vexed twice for same cause. Issues cannot be re-agitated as two courts already held DOE not an enterprise and OM not an agreement violating Section 3(4). Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
