Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
The Appellate Tribunal held that a later company petition could not be used to reopen reliefs already refused or deemed refused in an earlier final order. The liberty reserved in the prior judgment was confined to grievances arising from actions taken pursuant to the EGM directed thereunder, and did not authorise re-agitation of the entire controversy. As the later petition was substantially based on alleged non-compliance with the earlier order, the proper course was execution of that order, not a fresh petition. The Tribunal also applied res judicata and the principle underlying Order II Rule 2, finding substantial overlap with earlier claims and matters that could have been raised before. The appeal was dismissed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that a later company petition could not be used to reopen reliefs already refused or deemed refused in an earlier final order. The liberty reserved in the prior judgment was confined to grievances arising from actions taken pursuant to the EGM directed thereunder, and did not authorise re-agitation of the entire controversy. As the later petition was substantially based on alleged non-compliance with the earlier order, the proper course was execution of that order, not a fresh petition. The Tribunal also applied res judicata and the principle underlying Order II Rule 2, finding substantial overlap with earlier claims and matters that could have been raised before. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
