TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether disputed questions relating to immunity from penalty and the liability sought to be recovered could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226; (ii) whether the representation submitted by the petitioner required consideration by the competent authority and interim protection from coercive recovery was warranted pending such decision.
Issue (i): Whether disputed questions relating to immunity from penalty and the liability sought to be recovered could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Analysis: The dispute turned on factual questions concerning the effect of the settlement proceedings, the extent of immunity granted, and the correctness of the recovery demand. Such matters required examination of documents and evidence by the competent authority. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is confined to scrutiny of the decision-making process and does not permit a roving enquiry into disputed facts or a determination of liability on contested material.
Conclusion: The disputed factual issues were not fit for adjudication in writ proceedings.
Issue (ii): Whether the representation submitted by the petitioner required consideration by the competent authority and interim protection from coercive recovery was warranted pending such decision.
Analysis: Since the representation relating to the settlement order and recovery consequences had not yet been considered, the matter was directed to be examined by the competent authority on merits and in accordance with law. Pending such consideration, protection against coercive steps was necessary to preserve the petitioner's position.
Conclusion: The authority was directed to decide the representation on merits, and coercive action was restrained until disposal of the representation.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by directing the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law, while granting interim protection against coercive recovery till such decision.
Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, disputed questions of fact concerning liability and entitlement to immunity are not to be conclusively determined by the High Court, and the competent authority must first consider the representation and decide it on merits.
TaxTMI 
