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...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The HC dismissed the appeal as time-barred but allowed the petition insofar as the impugned adjudication order violated Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by confirming a demand (Rs. 6,52,259.04) exceeding the amount and grounds specified in the show-cause notice (Rs. 2,34,626.52). The court held the defect as substantive and not cured by mere indication of a reply date where the petitioner pleaded non-receipt of the notice. The adjudication order was set aside and the matter remitted to Respondent No.4 for issuance of fresh hearing opportunity, consideration of the petitioner's response, and passing of a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
The HC dismissed the appeal as time-barred but allowed the petition insofar as the impugned adjudication order violated Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by confirming a demand (Rs. 6,52,259.04) exceeding the amount and grounds specified in the show-cause notice (Rs. 2,34,626.52). The court held the defect as substantive and not cured by mere indication of a reply date where the petitioner pleaded non-receipt of the notice. The adjudication order was set aside and the matter remitted to Respondent No.4 for issuance of fresh hearing opportunity, consideration of the petitioner's response, and passing of a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
