https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39551 Recovery machinery under section 222 read with the Second Schedule was upheld against an Article 14 challenge because the statutory scheme provided safeguards, including investigation and remedies by appeal, revision and review, and was not rendered discriminatory merely because a civil suit under section 232 was also available. The writ challenge to assessment as successor to the business also failed, since whether the petitioner had purchased only stock-in-trade or had succeeded to the business was a question of fact for the assessing authority, and objections not raised at the proper stage could not be reopened in writ jurisdiction. The petition was rejected. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:16:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39551 Recovery machinery under section 222 read with the Second Schedule was upheld against an Article 14 challenge because the statutory scheme provided safeguards, including investigation and remedies by appeal, revision and review, and was not rendered discriminatory merely because a civil suit under section 232 was also available. The writ challenge to assessment as successor to the business also failed, since whether the petitioner had purchased only stock-in-trade or had succeeded to the business was a question of fact for the assessing authority, and objections not raised at the proper stage could not be reopened in writ jurisdiction. The petition was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Apr 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39551