Alternate statutory remedy governs GST assessment challenge, with statutory appeal preserved and limitation objection barred for the permitted filing ...
The HC held that the petitioner, acting under Section 23A of the Sand Act, 2001, exercised quasi-judicial powers in ordering the confiscation of vehicles used for illegal transportation. The court applied established criteria to determine that the petitioner's functions involved declaring rights and imposing obligations affecting civil rights, with procedural safeguards including opportunities to present evidence and legal arguments. Given that the statute provided for revision and appeal, the order was classified as quasi-judicial rather than executive or administrative. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to protection under Sections 2(a) and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The FIR alleging illegal exercise of power and collusion was held unsustainable in law. The petition was allowed, quashing the FIR against the petitioner.
The HC held that the petitioner, acting under Section 23A of the Sand Act, 2001, exercised quasi-judicial powers in ordering the confiscation of vehicles used for illegal transportation. The court applied established criteria to determine that the petitioner's functions involved declaring rights and imposing obligations affecting civil rights, with procedural safeguards including opportunities to present evidence and legal arguments. Given that the statute provided for revision and appeal, the order was classified as quasi-judicial rather than executive or administrative. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to protection under Sections 2(a) and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The FIR alleging illegal exercise of power and collusion was held unsustainable in law. The petition was allowed, quashing the FIR against the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
