Proceedings under Section 74 were initiated on the grounds that the seller Rohit Coal Traders did not exist

The petitioners claimed that the respondent expanded the project despite the agreement termination

Still, it cleared that there was no similarity between the two

The decision of the tribunal did not deserve any interference

States that the income tax department should not have doubted, questioned, or undertaken a merit review

The bench appoints Justice (Retd.) R.K. Gauba as the sole arbitrator and directs the parties to appear before him

The IDFC First Bank had challenged the rejection of its Section 13(10) application for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction

Stresses that the notice cannot be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months

In 2008, the company was forced to abandon the construction of its factory and shifted to Gujarat

The respondent had objected to the maintainability of the petition based on the court’s lack of territorial jurisdiction

Statutory remedy was sought against the impugned order under Section 112 of the Bihar GST

Stresses that transfer to commercial court is not essential