COURT OFFICERS ARE DUTY BOUND AND MUST ASSIST COURTS / JUDGES IN RENDERING EXPEDITIOUS JUSTICE, AND NOT DELAY AND MISLEAD COURTS.Surprising two orders of High Court on same ITA , indicating very poor state of administration in High Court and unfortunate and irresponsible behavior and actions of Court Officers including Standing Counsel and Senior Counsels leading case up to the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. ITC Ltd.

COURT OFFICERS ARE DUTY BOUND AND MUST ASSIST COURTS / JUDGES IN RENDERING EXPEDITIOUS JUSTICE, AND NOT DELAY AND MISLEAD COURTS.Surprising two orders of High Court on same ITA , indicating very poor state of administration in High Court and unfortunate and irresponsible behavior and actions of Court Officers including Standing Counsel and Senior Counsels leading case up to the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. ITC Ltd. https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=12318 Two inconsistent High Court orders on the same Income Tax Appeal showed a procedural lapse: a 2008 order admitting ten substantial questions of law was not noticed in a 2015 order that found no substantial question. The article attributes this to failures by court officers, standing counsel, and advocates to bring earlier orders to the bench's attention, and stresses their duty to assist the court, to correct omissions by filing appropriate applications, and to avoid creating unnecessary litigation. The Supreme Court reviewed the inconsistency and remitted the matter for fresh hearing. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:04:41 +0530 Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:04:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator COURT OFFICERS ARE DUTY BOUND AND MUST ASSIST COURTS / JUDGES IN RENDERING EXPEDITIOUS JUSTICE, AND NOT DELAY AND MISLEAD COURTS.Surprising two orders of High Court on same ITA , indicating very poor state of administration in High Court and unfortunate and irresponsible behavior and actions of Court Officers including Standing Counsel and Senior Counsels leading case up to the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. ITC Ltd. https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=12318 Two inconsistent High Court orders on the same Income Tax Appeal showed a procedural lapse: a 2008 order admitting ten substantial questions of law was not noticed in a 2015 order that found no substantial question. The article attributes this to failures by court officers, standing counsel, and advocates to bring earlier orders to the bench's attention, and stresses their duty to assist the court, to correct omissions by filing appropriate applications, and to avoid creating unnecessary litigation. The Supreme Court reviewed the inconsistency and remitted the matter for fresh hearing. Articles Other Topics Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:04:41 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=12318