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...
Successive applications under Section 65 cannot be used to reopen allegations of fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings once an earlier challenge has been rejected and the admission order has attained finality. The Tribunal treated the later application as a repetitive attempt to revive concluded issues, noting that mere repetition without fresh substantiating material could not sustain relief after findings on debt and default had become final. It also held that a litigant who falsely denied filing an earlier appeal and suppressed that dismissal failed to approach the Tribunal with clean hands, so the concealment itself justified denial of relief and adverse consequences, including costs.
Successive applications under Section 65 cannot be used to reopen allegations of fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings once an earlier challenge has been rejected and the admission order has attained finality. The Tribunal treated the later application as a repetitive attempt to revive concluded issues, noting that mere repetition without fresh substantiating material could not sustain relief after findings on debt and default had become final. It also held that a litigant who falsely denied filing an earlier appeal and suppressed that dismissal failed to approach the Tribunal with clean hands, so the concealment itself justified denial of relief and adverse consequences, including costs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.