Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The HC held that the rectification applications under Section 161 were improperly employed to recall an order allowing the petitioner's appeal; such relief cannot substitute for the statutory appellate remedy. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification, as the impugned orders required substantive examination rather than a manifest clerical mistake. Consequently the rectification orders were quashed, the order allowing the appeal was restored, and the petition was allowed. The HC emphasized that an aggrieved party must pursue the prescribed statutory remedy rather than seek recall via Section 161.
The HC held that the rectification applications under Section 161 were improperly employed to recall an order allowing the petitioner's appeal; such relief cannot substitute for the statutory appellate remedy. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification, as the impugned orders required substantive examination rather than a manifest clerical mistake. Consequently the rectification orders were quashed, the order allowing the appeal was restored, and the petition was allowed. The HC emphasized that an aggrieved party must pursue the prescribed statutory remedy rather than seek recall via Section 161.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
