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...
HC quashed the revisional order regarding maintainability u/s 108 of U.P. GST Act, 2017. The court clarified that Section 108(2) language "order has been subject to appeal" means an appeal must have been actually filed, not that appeal must be exhausted before seeking revision. The Revisional Authority's approach was contradictory - discussing merits while questioning maintainability. The order failed either as a merit-based decision (inadequate consideration of facts) or as a maintainability ruling (misinterpreting Section 108). The provision does not require exhaustion of appeal before revision petition. Matter remanded for fresh consideration of revision petition on merits.
HC quashed the revisional order regarding maintainability u/s 108 of U.P. GST Act, 2017. The court clarified that Section 108(2) language "order has been subject to appeal" means an appeal must have been actually filed, not that appeal must be exhausted before seeking revision. The Revisional Authority's approach was contradictory - discussing merits while questioning maintainability. The order failed either as a merit-based decision (inadequate consideration of facts) or as a maintainability ruling (misinterpreting Section 108). The provision does not require exhaustion of appeal before revision petition. Matter remanded for fresh consideration of revision petition on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.