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 assessment order and demand notice were liable to be quashed for breach of the principles of natural justice and whether the existence of an alternative statutory appeal barred writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Analysis: The writ applicant challenged the assessment on the ground that the assessing authority did not meaningfully consider the material, the consistently followed method of accounting, the tax audit details, and the explanation regarding allowable expenditure. The order also did not deal with the relevant Supreme Court decision relied upon by the applicant, and the penalty notice was found to be in a cyclostyle form without indicating the nature of the infraction. In these circumstances, the impugned order was held to be bereft of reasons and passed in violation of fair hearing requirements. The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected because a gross violation of natural justice permits invocation of writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The assessment order and demand notice were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the writ applicant and taking into account the relevant material.