https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775258 The Bombay HC set aside orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019, remanding the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration. The petitioner's written submissions, including Chartered Engineer's and Customer's certificates, were not considered in the original order, violating natural justice principles. The AAR initially decided without these certificates being filed by either party. When the evidence was first produced before the Appellate Authority with written submissions, it was considered without giving respondents opportunity to counter-examine or lead their own evidence. The HC found these procedural irregularities unsafe for decision-making, as the evidence remained untested by cross-examination. The court directed fresh consideration by AAR, ensuring both parties receive opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law and on merits. en-us Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775258 The Bombay HC set aside orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019, remanding the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration. The petitioner's written submissions, including Chartered Engineer's and Customer's certificates, were not considered in the original order, violating natural justice principles. The AAR initially decided without these certificates being filed by either party. When the evidence was first produced before the Appellate Authority with written submissions, it was considered without giving respondents opportunity to counter-examine or lead their own evidence. The HC found these procedural irregularities unsafe for decision-making, as the evidence remained untested by cross-examination. The court directed fresh consideration by AAR, ensuring both parties receive opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law and on merits. Case-Laws GST Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775258