Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 impugned order had been duly communicated on the assessee portal, whether the petitioner had been deprived of an effective opportunity to challenge it within limitation, and whether the writ petition should be kept pending or disposed of with directions for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The order records a dispute on whether the impugned order appeared under the correct portal tab and whether the petitioner had therefore been unable to seek timely remedy. It also notes a continuing controversy on whether the replies and annexures filed by the assessee were made available to and considered by the assessing officer. In view of these circumstances, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy, especially since the disputed amount stood deposited and no outstanding demand remained.
Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction permitting the assessee to treat the impugned order as the final notice and file a written reply within two weeks, followed by a fresh notice by the assessing officer with at least fifteen days' clear notice and a reasoned speaking order within one month thereafter.