Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
The dominant issue is the scope of judicial review under Article...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional duties upheld
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The dominant issue is the scope of judicial review under Article 226: the Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction is supervisory not appellate, permitting interference only for decisions that are unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or perverse; factual reappraisal is impermissible - challenge dismissed on this ground. On the substantive obligation of an insolvency professional, the Court held that statutory duties under Section 30(2), Section 29A, the Regulations and the Code of Conduct require active compliance, and ignorance of cancellation of an MSME certificate does not absolve responsibility - outcome: impugned findings upheld. Attempts to litigate factual merits not raised below and res judicata against a second show-cause notice were rejected; appeal dismissed. - HC
The dominant issue is the scope of judicial review under Article 226: the Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction is supervisory not appellate, permitting interference only for decisions that are unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or perverse; factual reappraisal is impermissible - challenge dismissed on this ground. On the substantive obligation of an insolvency professional, the Court held that statutory duties under Section 30(2), Section 29A, the Regulations and the Code of Conduct require active compliance, and ignorance of cancellation of an MSME certificate does not absolve responsibility - outcome: impugned findings upheld. Attempts to litigate factual merits not raised below and res judicata against a second show-cause notice were rejected; appeal dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
