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...
HC dismissed the writ petition but provided significant procedural relief. The court found the petitioners could not establish ownership of goods under Section 129(1)(a) of WBGST & CGST Act. However, the court granted the petitioners a 4-week window to file an appeal, which must be heard on merits within 16 weeks. The appellate authority must provide an opportunity for the petitioners to establish ownership, ensure fair cross-examination of key witnesses, and allow manual appeal filing with respondents' assistance. The decision preserves the petitioners' right to challenge the original order while maintaining procedural fairness.
HC dismissed the writ petition but provided significant procedural relief. The court found the petitioners could not establish ownership of goods under Section 129(1)(a) of WBGST & CGST Act. However, the court granted the petitioners a 4-week window to file an appeal, which must be heard on merits within 16 weeks. The appellate authority must provide an opportunity for the petitioners to establish ownership, ensure fair cross-examination of key witnesses, and allow manual appeal filing with respondents' assistance. The decision preserves the petitioners' right to challenge the original order while maintaining procedural fairness.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
