Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to a patent, obvious error apparent from the record and cannot be used to reargue debatable issues, reassess evidence, or reopen the merits of an earlier time-bar dismissal. The High Court held that complaints about the Tribunal's failure to summon further material, its treatment of the driver's affidavit on delay condonation, and alleged non-consideration of precedent involved adjudicatory choice rather than self-evident error, so no rectifiable mistake was shown. In the section 260A appeal, interference was unavailable absent perversity or a substantial question of law. The appeals were dismissed.
Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to a patent, obvious error apparent from the record and cannot be used to reargue debatable issues, reassess evidence, or reopen the merits of an earlier time-bar dismissal. The High Court held that complaints about the Tribunal's failure to summon further material, its treatment of the driver's affidavit on delay condonation, and alleged non-consideration of precedent involved adjudicatory choice rather than self-evident error, so no rectifiable mistake was shown. In the section 260A appeal, interference was unavailable absent perversity or a substantial question of law. The appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
