W.T.A. NO.19/KB OF 2005 DECIDED ON 30TH JUNE, 2005. versus W.T.A. NO.19/KB OF 2005 DECIDED ON 30TH JUNE, 2005.
Section 16 (5) separation of the diagnostic officer was not taken into account in the evaluation of the sources and from the persons whose details were properly provided to the reviewer for the authenticity of the documents. Assessment was set aside for what was done. Interpretation of defects and defects described in the detailed order recorded by the First Appellate Authority's Correction Order of the First Appellate Authority was not guaranteed because there was no specific finding to corroborate the evidence on record before the officers listed below. While affirming the order and setting aside the order, the appellate tribunal further directed that specific findings could be filed in this context as well as in the context of permission, rather than approval as required by law.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
