Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revisional authority could set aside the rectification order for breach of natural justice and remand the matter for fresh rectification after the limitation period for rectification had expired.
Analysis: The rectification order had been passed within the statutory period. The revisional authority found that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing and therefore set aside the rectification order. The Court held that, once the original rectification was made in time, the revisional authority was competent to remit the matter for fresh decision after giving hearing, and that section 37(2) supported the power to direct amendment consequent upon revision. A restrictive reading that would prevent remand would frustrate the scheme of the Act and lead to an absurd result. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished on the ground that they concerned different statutory settings.
Conclusion: The direction for fresh rectification was valid and not barred by limitation. The challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The revisional and appellate orders were upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment-related rectification is originally completed within time, a revisional authority may validly set aside that order for violation of natural justice and remit the matter for fresh rectification, and the expiry of the rectification period does not bar such remand.