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 writ petitions challenging only the demand notices for interest on entry tax, without challenging the underlying assessment orders, were maintainable in view of the earlier round of writ litigation and the principles of constructive res judicata and abuse of process.
Analysis: The demand of interest was held to be consequential to the assessment orders of entry tax. The earlier writ petitions had already challenged the assessment orders, which included interest as one of their components, and no relief had been granted on that aspect. The Court held that a consequential demand cannot be assailed independently without first challenging the basic order on which it rests. It further held that the present petitions amounted to successive writ petitions on the same cause of action and were barred by the principles underlying res judicata and public policy against re-litigation. The Court also noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy in appeal, and that the levy of interest was prima facie supported by the statutory scheme.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and no relief could be granted against the demand of interest on entry tax.