Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
