1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court dismisses challenge to instalment order under Indian Constitution, emphasizes correct procedure for objections.</h1> The court dismissed the challenge to the order granting instalments under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It was found that the demand ... - Issues:Challenge to order granting instalments under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India; Validity of demand notice issued after registration of case before BIFR; Proper procedure for filing objections before the concerned authority.Analysis:In this case, the petitioner, an assessee, challenged an order granting instalments passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax. The petitioner contended that after the order was passed, their case was registered before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The petitioner argued that due to the registration before the BIFR, the money could not be recovered, and the demand notice issued was invalid. However, it was revealed that at the time of the Commissioner's order, the case was not registered before the BIFR. The court emphasized that the petitioner could have applied for modification of the order or filed objections after the case was registered before the BIFR. The court highlighted that it was the Commissioner's responsibility to consider the consequences of the BIFR's order under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The petitioner was advised to approach the concerned authority with proper objections for consideration, as the procedure followed was not deemed appropriate.The petitioner admitted that they had not filed any objection before the Commissioner after the BIFR's order. The court stressed the importance of filing proper objections before the appropriate authority. The court disposed of the petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, file necessary objections, and request their consideration. It was emphasized that any objections filed should be decided by the concerned authority in accordance with the law. The petitioner was also given the option to request a stay before the concerned authority. The court concluded by directing the petitioner to follow the proper procedure for filing objections before the relevant authority and disposed of the petition with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
