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 authority's refusal to allow cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were used in show cause notice under CGST Act. The court emphasized that when third-party statements are relied upon in quasi-judicial proceedings, the fundamental right to cross-examine flows from Section 75(4) of CGST Act and principles of natural justice. The court held that unilateral statements made without providing opportunity for cross-examination cannot be justified under rule of law. The impugned order (Ext.P3) was set aside with directions to permit petitioner to cross-examine the persons whose statements were referenced in show cause notice while continuing the proceedings.
HC quashed the authority's refusal to allow cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were used in show cause notice under CGST Act. The court emphasized that when third-party statements are relied upon in quasi-judicial proceedings, the fundamental right to cross-examine flows from Section 75(4) of CGST Act and principles of natural justice. The court held that unilateral statements made without providing opportunity for cross-examination cannot be justified under rule of law. The impugned order (Ext.P3) was set aside with directions to permit petitioner to cross-examine the persons whose statements were referenced in show cause notice while continuing the proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
