TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses writ challenging assessment order, deems delay tactics; petitioner directed to comply within 60 days.</h1> <h3>Tvl. Super Fab Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)</h3> The court dismissed the writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.12.2015 related to an assessment order dated 27.02.2009, finding the petitioner's ... Validity of assessment order - wastage of time unnecessarily in seeking extension again and again - HELD THAT:- The writ petition ought to have been dismissed in limini. The petitioner has unnecessarily dragged the proceedings in respect of assessment year 2008-2009. The petitioner has not only wasted the time of the court but has also unnecessarily choked the assessment proceeding by stating that the impugned notice refers to be assessment order dated 27.02.2009 which has been quashed by the court - The case file of this Court also demonstrates that after the petitioner achieved the above purpose after an interim order was passed. The case has not been listed thereafter for all these years. The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is disposed of by directing the respondent to complete the assessment proceedings pursuant to order dated 22.04.2009 of this Court in W.P.No.5517 of 2009 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Challenge to notice dated 31.12.2015 referring to assessment order dated 27.02.2009.2. Delay tactics by the petitioner in assessment proceedings for the year 2008-2009.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a second writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.12.2015, which referenced an assessment order dated 27.02.2009. The petitioner argued that the notice should be quashed due to the connection with the previously quashed order. The petitioner had previously challenged the assessment order dated 27.02.2009 in W.P.No.5517 of 2009, resulting in the order being set aside for a fresh assessment. Despite the petitioner's objections, the court noted that the petitioner had replied to the notice seeking an extension to locate old records. The court found the petitioner's challenge to be a delay tactic, as the petitioner was aware of the situation and filed the writ petition with mischievous intent to stall the assessment proceedings.2. The court observed that the petitioner had unnecessarily prolonged the assessment proceedings for the year 2008-2009. The petitioner's actions were seen as an attempt to obstruct the assessment process by claiming the notice referred to the quashed order. The court criticized the petitioner for causing delays and noted that the petitioner's filing of the writ petition was a deliberate tactic to disrupt the assessment proceedings. Despite interim stay granted earlier, the petitioner continued to seek adjournments, further delaying the process. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition and directed the respondent to complete the assessment proceedings within 60 days from the date of the order, giving the petitioner a final opportunity to submit any additional representations within 30 days. The court emphasized that the petitioner's conduct had needlessly burdened the court and obstructed the assessment process, leading to the dismissal of the petition without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
