TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
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: Whether the writ court should interfere with the assessment order on the ground that cross-examination of third-party witnesses was denied and the confession statement was later retracted, despite the availability of an alternate statutory appeal.
Analysis: The challenge rested on alleged violation of natural justice because statements recorded from third parties were said to have been used against the assessee without cross-examination, and because the assessee's own confession was subsequently retracted. The impugned assessment, however, did not rely on any third-party statement for fastening liability. The officer also declined to act on the confession statement after concluding that the retraction was belated. In these circumstances, the grievance as to cross-examination did not establish a viable natural justice violation. The question whether the retraction was rightly rejected involved appreciation of facts and was a matter for the appellate authority under the statutory scheme, not for writ interference under Article 226.
Conclusion: The writ court was not required to interfere, and the challenge to the assessment on the grounds urged was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessment does not rely on third-party statements and the disputed issue turns on the propriety of rejecting a belated retraction, writ interference is unwarranted and the aggrieved party must pursue the statutory appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
