<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>High Court Sets Aside Orders Citing Natural Justice Violation, Remands Case for Fresh Hearing</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90779</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019, and remanded the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the Appellate Authority improperly considered the Chartered Engineer&#039;s and Customer&#039;s Certificates without affording the Respondents an opportunity to challenge the evidence through cross-examination or to present their own evidence. The evidence was first introduced at the appellate stage, depriving the Respondents of a fair chance to contest it. Due to these procedural irregularities and the untested nature of the evidence, the HC deemed it unsafe to rely on the Appellate Authority&#039;s decision and directed a rehearing in accordance with law and on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:28 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=837785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Sets Aside Orders Citing Natural Justice Violation, Remands Case for Fresh Hearing</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90779</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019, and remanded the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the Appellate Authority improperly considered the Chartered Engineer&#039;s and Customer&#039;s Certificates without affording the Respondents an opportunity to challenge the evidence through cross-examination or to present their own evidence. The evidence was first introduced at the appellate stage, depriving the Respondents of a fair chance to contest it. Due to these procedural irregularities and the untested nature of the evidence, the HC deemed it unsafe to rely on the Appellate Authority&#039;s decision and directed a rehearing in accordance with law and on merits.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:28 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>