Functional comparability under TNMM: broadcasters excluded, software distributors included, and no separate interest on receivables after working capi...
NCLAT held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance because counsel's absence on the relevant date was supported by the record and appeared genuine, even though an adjournment should have been sought earlier. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest the matter. The order rejecting restoration of the petition dismissed for non-prosecution was set aside, and the restoration application was revived and remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after hearing both sides, including the defence regarding absence on 16.05.2025, in accordance with law.
NCLAT held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance because counsel's absence on the relevant date was supported by the record and appeared genuine, even though an adjournment should have been sought earlier. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest the matter. The order rejecting restoration of the petition dismissed for non-prosecution was set aside, and the restoration application was revived and remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after hearing both sides, including the defence regarding absence on 16.05.2025, in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.