Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Infrastructure facility: energy-efficient public lighting held integral to road projects, qualifying the operator as a developer and eligible for dedu...
Recall under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules was held confined to apparent procedural or similar infirmity in the order itself and could not be used to reopen a merits decision. The Tribunal treated a recall application based on later-discovered documents as a disguised attempt to seek review, which the Code does not permit, and held that subsequent material cannot justify recalling an order passed on merits. It also held that once the original section 9 order had been affirmed in appeal, it could not thereafter be reopened by recall. The appeal was dismissed and rejection of the recall application upheld.
Recall under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules was held confined to apparent procedural or similar infirmity in the order itself and could not be used to reopen a merits decision. The Tribunal treated a recall application based on later-discovered documents as a disguised attempt to seek review, which the Code does not permit, and held that subsequent material cannot justify recalling an order passed on merits. It also held that once the original section 9 order had been affirmed in appeal, it could not thereafter be reopened by recall. The appeal was dismissed and rejection of the recall application upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
