Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
HC dismissed petition challenging lower court's order allowing respondent to summon GST Department witness. Court held that since GST records were not in respondent's possession, they could rightfully request witness testimony, subject to Rs. 3,000/- costs. The principle of plaintiff's burden of proof was upheld, affirming their discretion to determine necessary witnesses and documentation. While irrelevant evidence would be disregarded, the Court maintained that plaintiffs cannot be denied their right to present their case as they deem appropriate during the evidentiary stage. The ruling emphasizes procedural fairness in evidence gathering despite potential relevancy concerns.
HC dismissed petition challenging lower court's order allowing respondent to summon GST Department witness. Court held that since GST records were not in respondent's possession, they could rightfully request witness testimony, subject to Rs. 3,000/- costs. The principle of plaintiff's burden of proof was upheld, affirming their discretion to determine necessary witnesses and documentation. While irrelevant evidence would be disregarded, the Court maintained that plaintiffs cannot be denied their right to present their case as they deem appropriate during the evidentiary stage. The ruling emphasizes procedural fairness in evidence gathering despite potential relevancy concerns.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
