Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
The HC dismissed the petition challenging an ex parte order under Section 74 UPGST Act, holding the challenge misconceived and liable to be rejected. The court found the appellant pursued successive writs to evade the pre-deposit required by Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, failed to seek exemption from pre-deposit before the appellate authority and the apex court, and did not prosecute the statutory appeal within limitations. Applying principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the HC held the remedy of appeal and exemption were always available and deliberately not pursued; accordingly the petition is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and procedural abuse.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging an ex parte order under Section 74 UPGST Act, holding the challenge misconceived and liable to be rejected. The court found the appellant pursued successive writs to evade the pre-deposit required by Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, failed to seek exemption from pre-deposit before the appellate authority and the apex court, and did not prosecute the statutory appeal within limitations. Applying principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the HC held the remedy of appeal and exemption were always available and deliberately not pursued; accordingly the petition is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and procedural abuse.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
