Manishankar appearing on
behalf of the plaintiff submitted that several documents produced by the
defendant during cross examination of the PW1 were inadmissible and
therefore ... submits that Exhibit D30 (series) was an incomplete document, undated
and irrelevant document and hence inadmissible. It is further submitted
that DW1 has herself admitted
Eta Mauritius Limited vs Pueblo Holdings Limited on 3 June, 2020
Author: R. Subbiah
Bench
weeks' time was given for inspection of documents.
(c) The appellant/plaintiff filed affidavit of documents on 24.07.2014.
Thereafter, the matter was posted before ... documents were erroneously marked in the suit and the said documents
could be classified as (i) photocopies of the documents (secondary
evidence), (ii) incomplete documents
said DIN has never
been used for filing of any document with any
authority, the Central Government may deactivate
such DIN:
Provided that before deactivation ... strength of documents which are not
legally valid or incomplete documents are furnished
or on suppression of material information or on the
basis of wrong
issued by the Commercial Tax Department of
Karnataka is incomplete. Therefore, based on such incomplete documents
also, there is no case made out for granting
said DIN has never
been used for filing of any document with any
authority, the Central Government may deactivate
such DIN:
Provided that before deactivation ... strength of documents which are not
legally valid or incomplete documents are furnished
or on suppression of material information or on the
basis of wrong
said DIN has never
been used for filing of any document with any
authority, the Central Government may deactivate
such DIN:
Provided that before deactivation ... strength of documents which are
not legally valid or incomplete documents are
furnished or on suppression of material information
or on the basis of wrong
petitioner appears to have responded to the same and had given
documents on 23.12.2020. In the reply dated 29.01.2021 to the Show
Cause Notice dated ... documents in para 12.4 of the impugned order.
6. In the counter, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner
has furnished the documents although incomplete
submitted that the question of refund cannot be
granted where documents were incomplete along with refund claim. In
this connection, the learned Senior Standing Counsel
submitted that the question of refund cannot be
granted where documents were incomplete along with refund claim
