https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308294 The Supreme Court of India stated that cancellation of an allotment under Section 24(2) depended on a jurisdictional fact: the allotment must have been obtained by fraud, false representation, or concealment of material fact. It held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's satisfaction on that issue was subject to judicial review and had to rest on relevant material, not arbitrary or perverse reasoning. Because the original record was not produced, relevant supporting reports were ignored, and the finding of non-genuineness lacked evidence, the cancellation was set aside and the prior allotment remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308294 The Supreme Court of India stated that cancellation of an allotment under Section 24(2) depended on a jurisdictional fact: the allotment must have been obtained by fraud, false representation, or concealment of material fact. It held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's satisfaction on that issue was subject to judicial review and had to rest on relevant material, not arbitrary or perverse reasoning. Because the original record was not produced, relevant supporting reports were ignored, and the finding of non-genuineness lacked evidence, the cancellation was set aside and the prior allotment remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Dec 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308294