https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763352 Review was refused because neither alleged basis showed a material error affecting the earlier order. The Court noted that the calculation filed with the rejoinder had not been challenged by sur-rejoinder and no time had been sought to verify it, so the observation that it was undisputed was justified. The January 2014 letter concerning renewal of the fixed deposit also did not support review, as it had not been placed before the Court earlier and, in any event, the prior order had already left the enquiry open on why the deposit was not renewed and who was responsible. en-us Sat, 14 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:58:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763352 Review was refused because neither alleged basis showed a material error affecting the earlier order. The Court noted that the calculation filed with the rejoinder had not been challenged by sur-rejoinder and no time had been sought to verify it, so the observation that it was undisputed was justified. The January 2014 letter concerning renewal of the fixed deposit also did not support review, as it had not been placed before the Court earlier and, in any event, the prior order had already left the enquiry open on why the deposit was not renewed and who was responsible. Case-Laws GST Sat, 14 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763352