Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
