Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 the appellate authority is empowered under Rule 112(4) of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, to admit additional evidence, including documents and witness examination, despite the restrictions in sub-rule (1). The appellate authority's failure to consider this jurisdiction rendered its order mechanical and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the matter was remanded with directions for the appellate authority to allow the petitioner to adduce additional evidence, specifically a certificate dated 10 August 2024 issued by respondent no.6. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly by way of remand.
The HC held that the appellate authority is empowered under Rule 112(4) of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, to admit additional evidence, including documents and witness examination, despite the restrictions in sub-rule (1). The appellate authority's failure to consider this jurisdiction rendered its order mechanical and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the matter was remanded with directions for the appellate authority to allow the petitioner to adduce additional evidence, specifically a certificate dated 10 August 2024 issued by respondent no.6. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.