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...
The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, specifically the failure to submit valid proof of payment of the mandatory pre-deposit and the absence of valid documents establishing the petitioner's authority as an authorized signatory under the Companies Act. However, the court found that the respondent erred in not verifying the petitioner's authorization on the GSTN portal. Citing a precedent case, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of adhering to due process and verifying relevant facts before rendering a decision.
The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, specifically the failure to submit valid proof of payment of the mandatory pre-deposit and the absence of valid documents establishing the petitioner's authority as an authorized signatory under the Companies Act. However, the court found that the respondent erred in not verifying the petitioner's authorization on the GSTN portal. Citing a precedent case, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of adhering to due process and verifying relevant facts before rendering a decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
