{"id":34402,"date":"2023-04-23T13:22:30","date_gmt":"2023-04-23T07:52:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/sanjay-singhal-v-uoi-2022-211-dtr-182-325-ctr-354-rajhc\/"},"modified":"2023-04-23T13:22:30","modified_gmt":"2023-04-23T07:52:30","slug":"sanjay-singhal-v-uoi-2022-211-dtr-182-325-ctr-354-rajhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/sanjay-singhal-v-uoi-2022-211-dtr-182-325-ctr-354-rajhc\/","title":{"rendered":"Sanjay Singhal v. UOI (2022) 211 DTR 182\/325 CTR 354 (Raj)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Petitioners have preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority exercising their Right of Appeal against Assessment Order passed in the year 2021 for search and seizure conducted in the year 2018. Pending the said appeal, the petitioners have approached the Court under Writ Petition to exercise discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The petitioners urged that the matter be entertained on the ground that correctness and validity of \u201creason to believe\u201d may not be entertained by the Appellate authority and the petitioners filed appeal only to avoid objection with regard to limitation in the matter of challenge to order of assessment. The Court refused to exercise discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as there is not only an alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the law but that remedy has been invoked by the petitioners and the appeal is pending consideration and hence disposed off the appeal while directing the Appellate authority to decide the petitioner\u2019s appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order and the aspect of \u201creason to believe and satisfaction\u201d should be examined as permissible under the law.<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 132: Search and Seizure \u2013 Reasons to believe -Discretionary jurisdiction &#8211; Alternative remedy- Writ petition was dismissed . [ Art . 226 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-8WS","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34402","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34402"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34402\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34403,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34402\/revisions\/34403"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}