https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6672 A writ petition based on facts required a supporting affidavit from personal knowledge; an affidavit by a pairokar on information and belief was treated as insufficient to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Under section 226(3)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, an objection that the demand was not due had to be made on oath at the prescribed stage before the recovery certificate issued; a belated denial did not compel suspension of recovery once the certificate machinery had begun. Non-compliance with the Second Schedule notice requirements was treated as a procedural irregularity where the assessee had actual prior knowledge and no prejudice was shown. The availability of an alternative statutory appeal also weighed against writ relief. en-us Wed, 30 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 05:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6672 A writ petition based on facts required a supporting affidavit from personal knowledge; an affidavit by a pairokar on information and belief was treated as insufficient to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Under section 226(3)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, an objection that the demand was not due had to be made on oath at the prescribed stage before the recovery certificate issued; a belated denial did not compel suspension of recovery once the certificate machinery had begun. Non-compliance with the Second Schedule notice requirements was treated as a procedural irregularity where the assessee had actual prior knowledge and no prejudice was shown. The availability of an alternative statutory appeal also weighed against writ relief. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6672