https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274274 A disciplinary enquiry was not invalidated by the sequence in which the enquiry officer and charges were dealt with, because the authority remained competent to have charges prepared and no prejudice to the delinquent was shown. Appointment of a second enquiry officer for the limited purpose of enabling cross-examination also did not vitiate the proceedings, as the witness was examined, cross-examined, and no material displaced the earlier findings. The assessed findings were not perverse merely because the witness gave differing versions, and the penalty was sustained. A delayed writ challenge was also found unsustainable where communication of the penalty had occurred much earlier. en-us Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Aug 2018 08:25:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274274 A disciplinary enquiry was not invalidated by the sequence in which the enquiry officer and charges were dealt with, because the authority remained competent to have charges prepared and no prejudice to the delinquent was shown. Appointment of a second enquiry officer for the limited purpose of enabling cross-examination also did not vitiate the proceedings, as the witness was examined, cross-examined, and no material displaced the earlier findings. The assessed findings were not perverse merely because the witness gave differing versions, and the penalty was sustained. A delayed writ challenge was also found unsustainable where communication of the penalty had occurred much earlier. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274274