Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that initiation of fresh proceedings on an issue already adjudicated is impermissible; any error apparent on the record must be rectified under Section 161 of the GST Act by the department. The petitioner was wrongly subjected to fresh proceedings culminating in the impugned order, which was subsequently rejected. The Court suo motu impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, as a party and quashed the impugned order. The second respondent was granted liberty to pass an appropriate order incorporating the proposed demand after providing the petitioner a hearing. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC held that initiation of fresh proceedings on an issue already adjudicated is impermissible; any error apparent on the record must be rectified under Section 161 of the GST Act by the department. The petitioner was wrongly subjected to fresh proceedings culminating in the impugned order, which was subsequently rejected. The Court suo motu impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, as a party and quashed the impugned order. The second respondent was granted liberty to pass an appropriate order incorporating the proposed demand after providing the petitioner a hearing. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
