Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
