TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order disposing of the writ petition could be recalled after it emerged that the petition had been filed and prosecuted by a person who was not managing the petitioner concern and whose statement was inconsistent with the affidavit filed in support of the petition; (ii) whether proceedings ought to be initiated for false statement and perjury against the deponent.
Issue (i): Whether the earlier order disposing of the writ petition could be recalled after it emerged that the petition had been filed and prosecuted by a person who was not managing the petitioner concern and whose statement was inconsistent with the affidavit filed in support of the petition.
Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed that the deponent had admitted signing the petition and affidavit, but also stated that he was unaware of the affairs of the concern and that another person was managing it. The affidavit filed in support of the petition was inconsistent with that statement. In these circumstances, the foundation on which the earlier disposal rested no longer survived, and the order could not continue to operate.
Conclusion: The earlier order was recalled and the writ petition was dismissed in favour of the revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether proceedings ought to be initiated for false statement and perjury against the deponent.
Analysis: On the material before the Court, the deponent's affidavit and his statement before the Court were irreconcilable. The Court treated this as a prima facie case of perjury warranting action under the statutory mechanism for false evidence and offences affecting administration of justice.
Conclusion: Proceedings were directed to be initiated against the deponent under the relevant provisions.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition could not be sustained, and the Court also directed initiation of perjury-related proceedings arising from the false affidavit and inconsistent statement.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a petition is shown to have been filed on a false factual foundation by a person lacking control of the concern and the supporting affidavit is contradicted by the deponent's own statement, the earlier disposal may be recalled and action under the provisions governing false evidence and perjury may be directed.
TaxTMI 
