Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019, and remanded the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the Appellate Authority improperly considered the Chartered Engineer's and Customer's Certificates without affording the Respondents an opportunity to challenge the evidence through cross-examination or to present their own evidence. The evidence was first introduced at the appellate stage, depriving the Respondents of a fair chance to contest it. Due to these procedural irregularities and the untested nature of the evidence, the HC deemed it unsafe to rely on the Appellate Authority's decision and directed a rehearing in accordance with law and on merits.
The HC allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019, and remanded the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the Appellate Authority improperly considered the Chartered Engineer's and Customer's Certificates without affording the Respondents an opportunity to challenge the evidence through cross-examination or to present their own evidence. The evidence was first introduced at the appellate stage, depriving the Respondents of a fair chance to contest it. Due to these procedural irregularities and the untested nature of the evidence, the HC deemed it unsafe to rely on the Appellate Authority's decision and directed a rehearing in accordance with law and on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
