Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
