Infrastructure facility: energy-efficient public lighting held integral to road projects, qualifying the operator as a developer and eligible for dedu...
Fourth Proviso to Section 153A: extended-period inquiry requires a reasonable, material-based satisfaction that escaped income likely exceeds the thre...
Validity of refund sanction orders was examined with primary focus on procedural fairness and the requirement of a reasoned, speaking order. The court found the impugned administrative order failed to consider petitioner's submissions and lacked discussion showing the refund claim was legally incorrect; rejection rested on the department's inability to distinguish payment purpose without contrary material. Consequently the impugned order was held unsustainable for want of a reasoned decision and natural justice, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered or dealt with further to meet the ends of justice.
Validity of refund sanction orders was examined with primary focus on procedural fairness and the requirement of a reasoned, speaking order. The court found the impugned administrative order failed to consider petitioner's submissions and lacked discussion showing the refund claim was legally incorrect; rejection rested on the department's inability to distinguish payment purpose without contrary material. Consequently the impugned order was held unsustainable for want of a reasoned decision and natural justice, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered or dealt with further to meet the ends of justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.