https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774863 Regulation 27 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 requires delivery of the confirming order in the prescribed manner, and that requirement was not met where the authority knew the affected party's director was in judicial custody yet sent the order to the residential address instead of the jail or counsel. No proof of email intimation or timely physical delivery was shown, so the communication was ineffective and the party was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal. The writ was disposed of with a direction to furnish the order to the petitioner or its counsel and to permit recourse to the appellate remedy, leaving the legal question open before the appellate forum. en-us Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:17:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774863 Regulation 27 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 requires delivery of the confirming order in the prescribed manner, and that requirement was not met where the authority knew the affected party's director was in judicial custody yet sent the order to the residential address instead of the jail or counsel. No proof of email intimation or timely physical delivery was shown, so the communication was ineffective and the party was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal. The writ was disposed of with a direction to furnish the order to the petitioner or its counsel and to permit recourse to the appellate remedy, leaving the legal question open before the appellate forum. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774863