Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Where proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Section 424 of the Companies Act, the adjudicatory process must comply with natural justice and the prescribed procedural course. The Appellate Tribunal held that an order shown for pronouncement without a concluded hearing, without a fixed pronouncement date, without an ex parte direction, and without deciding a pending application for additional documents was procedurally defective and ex parte in substance. It further held that an application challenging such defects was a recall application, not a review, so dismissal for want of review jurisdiction was erroneous. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after deciding the document application, subject to costs.
Where proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Section 424 of the Companies Act, the adjudicatory process must comply with natural justice and the prescribed procedural course. The Appellate Tribunal held that an order shown for pronouncement without a concluded hearing, without a fixed pronouncement date, without an ex parte direction, and without deciding a pending application for additional documents was procedurally defective and ex parte in substance. It further held that an application challenging such defects was a recall application, not a review, so dismissal for want of review jurisdiction was erroneous. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after deciding the document application, subject to costs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
