A jurisdictional objection based on the statutory bar against parallel proceedings was rejected as premature because no material was produced to show initiation of adjudicatory proceedings, identity of subject matter, tax period, or cause of action; a writ court could not record even a prima facie finding without such foundational facts. The challenge to provisional attachment for want of a pre-decisional hearing also failed, as Section 83 was treated as not requiring prior notice and the statutory scheme was held to provide a complete post-decisional remedy under Rule 159(5). The petitioner's custody at the time of attachment did not, by itself, invalidate the action, and writ interference was declined.
A jurisdictional objection based on the statutory bar against parallel proceedings was rejected as premature because no material was produced to show initiation of adjudicatory proceedings, identity of subject matter, tax period, or cause of action; a writ court could not record even a prima facie finding without such foundational facts. The challenge to provisional attachment for want of a pre-decisional hearing also failed, as Section 83 was treated as not requiring prior notice and the statutory scheme was held to provide a complete post-decisional remedy under Rule 159(5). The petitioner's custody at the time of attachment did not, by itself, invalidate the action, and writ interference was declined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
