Home ›

Search Results For: Writ Petition

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 17, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Art 226: If an assessee obtains an order from the Court that the Dept should refund the seized amount but does not take steps to enforce the order beyond the period of limitation, he is guilty of laches and negligence. He is not entitled to file another Writ for enforcement of the earlier order. Such a litigant does not deserve any relief in the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of the High Court

This Court is not obliged to entertain belated and stale claims. The writ jurisdiction is not meant to confer benefit or enable litigants who sleep over their rights to derive an advantage for themselves. The writ jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary and if people like the petitioner, who is a businessman and prudent enough to know as to how monies, allegedly retained illegally, have to be recovered promptly and expeditiously. He does nothing despite a favourable order from this Court for more than a decade. Such a litigant does not deserve any relief in our discretionary and equitable jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is extraordinary as well. It is not meant to get over the bar prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963 for bringing a suit either. This indirect and oblique way of seeking a discretionary relief has to be discouraged

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 14, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263 Revision (show-cause notice): A Writ Petition to challenge a s. 263 notice is maintainable if the authority issuing the show-cause notice lacks jurisdiction and if the notice is clearly barred by law. As per Alagendran Finance 162 Taxman 465 (SC), the two year limitation period stipulated u/s 263(2) runs from the date of the original assessment and not from the date of reassessment when the s. 263 notice deals with issues which are not subject matter of reassessment proceedings (MAK Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) & Malabar Industrial Co 243 ITR 83 (SC) distinguished)

When a notice under Section 263 raises new issues, which are not subject matter of the re-assessment proceedings, then the two year period contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 263 would begin to run from the date of assessment and not from the date of re-assessment. In other words, the ratio laid down in Alagendran Finance 162 Taxman 465 (SC), particularly as elucidated in Paragraph 15 of the Alagendran Finance case, is to the effect that the two year limitation period stipulated under Section 263(2) will run from the date of assessment only and not from the date of reassessment when the Section 263 notice does not deal with the same subject as in assessment and when it deals with other issues which are not subject matter of reassessment proceedings

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: December 8, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 19, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: A Writ Petition to challenge the issue of a reopening notice u/s 148 is maintainable as per the law laid down in Calcutta Discount 41 ITR 191 (SC). The law laid down in Chhabil Dass Agarwal 357 ITR 357 (SC) deals with the maintainability of a Writ to challenge the reassessment order and does not apply to a challenge to the reassessment notice

The High Courts dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the assessee challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the reasons which were recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Courts as not maintainable. The aforesaid view taken is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Calcutta Discount Limited Company vs. Incom Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta & Anr. [(1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 27, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 4, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Writ Petition: A Writ Petition filed little after four months of receipt of impugned order suffers from “delay”. If the Writ Petition does not explain the reasons for the “delay”, it is liable to be dismissed

We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal was passed on 4th December, 2015, received by the petitioner on 28th December, 2015. This petition has been filed on 29th April, 2016. The petition states that according to the petitioner, there is no delay in filing the petition. However, if this Court is of the view that there is a delay and delay may be condoned. However, no reasons with particulars are specified in the petition. In view of the fact that the petition itself does not explain the reason for the delay, the petition is liable to be dismissed

Read more ›