https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39842 The court held that the discretionary power of the Commissioner under section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act must be exercised if conditions exist, rejecting the argument that it is purely discretionary. It dismissed claims of ante-dated notices under section 17 and emphasized the need for actual service of notices for compliance. The court clarified that the term "issue" in section 18(2A) means "serve." It also found no distinction between notices under section 14(2) and section 17. The court ruled that the Commissioner's order under section 18(2A) is subject to writ jurisdiction and quashed the original order, directing a fresh decision in favor of the petitioner. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:19:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39842 The court held that the discretionary power of the Commissioner under section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act must be exercised if conditions exist, rejecting the argument that it is purely discretionary. It dismissed claims of ante-dated notices under section 17 and emphasized the need for actual service of notices for compliance. The court clarified that the term "issue" in section 18(2A) means "serve." It also found no distinction between notices under section 14(2) and section 17. The court ruled that the Commissioner's order under section 18(2A) is subject to writ jurisdiction and quashed the original order, directing a fresh decision in favor of the petitioner. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Thu, 15 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39842