TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Dismisses Petition for Lack of Maintainability Under Section 39(6)</h1> <h3>Ramchandra Jagannath & Co. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh</h3> The court dismissed the petition due to the application's lack of maintainability under section 39(6) of the Act, despite acknowledging the violation of ... - Issues:1. Violation of principles of natural justice in dismissing the application under section 39(6) of the Act.2. Maintainability of the application under section 39(6) of the Act.3. Revival of dismissed petition due to the repeal of section 58 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976.4. Recovery of tax amount in violation of stay order and potential contempt of court.Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice in dismissing the application under section 39(6) of the Act:The petitioner contended that the order dismissing the application under section 39(6) of the Act lacked natural justice as no hearing opportunity was provided. The court acknowledged the violation but found the application not maintainable due to specific conditions outlined in the Act. The court noted that the State Government should have given a hearing opportunity before dismissing the application, which was a breach of natural justice principles.Issue 2: Maintainability of the application under section 39(6) of the Act:The court examined the provisions of section 39(6) of the Act, which required certain conditions to be met for the application's validity. The petitioner failed to fulfill the condition of making an application for revision under sub-section (1) of section 39, rendering the application under section 39(6) not maintainable. The court emphasized that the proviso to section 39(6) did not allow relaxation of these conditions.Issue 3: Revival of dismissed petition due to the repeal of section 58 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976:The petitioner sought to revive a dismissed petition following the repeal of section 58 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. However, the court held that the dismissal of the earlier petition on grounds of abatement barred re-litigation of the same matter. The court cited precedent to support the view that the repeal did not affect the abatement, thus precluding the petitioner from re-agitating the issue in the present petition.Issue 4: Recovery of tax amount in violation of stay order and potential contempt of court:The petitioner alleged that the respondents recovered tax in violation of a stay order, seeking a refund. The court declined to delve into factual disputes and suggested the petitioner pursue contempt proceedings if deemed appropriate. The court emphasized that disputed factual matters were not suitable for resolution in the current petition, leaving the petitioner the option to initiate separate proceedings for contempt if warranted.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, stating that each party should bear its costs, and directed the refund of the security deposit to the petitioner after verification. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural compliance and the limitations imposed by statutory conditions on seeking relief under the Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
