https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290110 Article 226 writ jurisdiction was held unavailable to challenge an order completed before 26 January 1950 because the Constitution's writ power had no retrospective operation. On limitation under Section 33A(2) of the Income-tax Act, the one-year period was construed as running from the date of the order itself, since the statutory wording fixed time from that date and the Court declined to read in receipt, service, or knowledge of the order. The contrasting view was rejected as inconsistent with the plain language of the provision. The result was that the challenge to the Commissioner's refusal was not sustained. en-us Mon, 17 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290110 Article 226 writ jurisdiction was held unavailable to challenge an order completed before 26 January 1950 because the Constitution's writ power had no retrospective operation. On limitation under Section 33A(2) of the Income-tax Act, the one-year period was construed as running from the date of the order itself, since the statutory wording fixed time from that date and the Court declined to read in receipt, service, or knowledge of the order. The contrasting view was rejected as inconsistent with the plain language of the provision. The result was that the challenge to the Commissioner's refusal was not sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290110