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 a second rectification application could be directed to be decided in a time-bound manner after a rectified assessment order had already been passed, and whether the proper remedy was a statutory appeal against the rectified assessment order.
Analysis: A rectification application had already been filed against the assessment order and disposed of by passing a rectified assessment order. The subsequent application sought further rectification of the same assessment order. Once rectification had been considered and the order corrected, repeated rectification applications were held to be impermissible. The appropriate course for dissatisfaction with the rectified assessment was to challenge it in statutory appeal. In these circumstances, the recently filed further application did not justify a direction for disposal within a fixed time.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a direction for time-bound disposal of the second rectification application, and the remedy lay in statutory appeal against the rectified assessment order.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy available under the statute.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a rectification application has been disposed of and a rectified assessment order has been passed, a further rectification request on the same subject is not the proper remedy, and the aggrieved party must pursue the statutory appeal process.