https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461157 The HC modified the order in W.P. No. 19153 of 2008, recognizing that the case facts were distinct from those in WP No. 18918 of 2000. The Court condoned a 1514-day delay in filing the review application, allowing consideration of substantive issues. It concluded that the legal principles from WP No. 18918 of 2000 were not applicable due to differing facts. The review application, based on an alleged error, was rendered moot as the Court directed respondents to independently complete the show cause notice process, ensuring the petitioner could present their case. en-us Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Mar 2025 19:01:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461157 The HC modified the order in W.P. No. 19153 of 2008, recognizing that the case facts were distinct from those in WP No. 18918 of 2000. The Court condoned a 1514-day delay in filing the review application, allowing consideration of substantive issues. It concluded that the legal principles from WP No. 18918 of 2000 were not applicable due to differing facts. The review application, based on an alleged error, was rendered moot as the Court directed respondents to independently complete the show cause notice process, ensuring the petitioner could present their case. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461157