Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
The dominant issue was whether the refund application was time-barred. Relying on its earlier ruling in an identical factual matrix, the Court held that rejection of the refund solely on limitation was contrary to facts and law because the refund claim had been filed within the prescribed time. Consequently, the impugned rejection order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
The dominant issue was whether the refund application was time-barred. Relying on its earlier ruling in an identical factual matrix, the Court held that rejection of the refund solely on limitation was contrary to facts and law because the refund claim had been filed within the prescribed time. Consequently, the impugned rejection order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.