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: (i) Whether the appellate rejection of the assessee's appeal for limitation required interference and remand for fresh consideration after hearing; (ii) whether, pending disposal of the remanded appeal, the order-in-original could be kept in abeyance on the footing that the statutory pre-deposit had been made.
Issue (i): Whether the appellate rejection of the assessee's appeal for limitation required interference and remand for fresh consideration after hearing.
Analysis: The appellate authority had rejected the appeal as time barred without granting an opportunity of hearing. The impugned appellate order was therefore found unsustainable. The writ court also held that the constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(2)(aa) of the Act need not be examined at this stage and could be agitated after the appeal remedy was exhausted, if the assessee remained aggrieved.
Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing.
Issue (ii): Whether, pending disposal of the remanded appeal, the order-in-original could be kept in abeyance on the footing that the statutory pre-deposit had been made.
Analysis: The court noted the assertion that the statutory pre-deposit had already been paid and observed that, during pendency of the appeal on remand, the coercive effect of the order-in-original should remain suspended if the pre-deposit stood made.
Conclusion: The order-in-original was directed to remain stayed till disposal of the appeal, subject to the pre-deposit having been paid.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition resulted in remand of the appellate proceedings, with interim protection against recovery during the fresh appellate consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate rejection made without hearing the appellant cannot stand, and the appellate remedy must be reconsidered afresh before any constitutional challenge to the charging provision is entertained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
