TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (8) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Authority, Sonepat, dated the 22nd January, 1973, and remanded the case for fresh assessment. In view of what follows it is unnecessary to advert to the facts in any great detail. It suffices to mention that vide annexure P-1, the Assessing Authority, Sonepat, assessed the total tax and penalty due from the petitioners, M/s. Avon Scale Company, Sonepat, at a paltry sum of Rs. 85 and directed the issue of a demand notice against them accordingly. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ambala, however, acting suo motu under the revisional jurisdiction conferred by section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, called for the record of the proceedings and the assessment order for the purpose of satisfying himself as to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms: "40. Revision.-(1) The Commissioner may on his own motion call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any assessing authority or appellate authority, other than the Tribunal, for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any proceedings or of any order made therein and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may think fit. (2) The State Government may, by notification, confer on any officer the powers of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) to be exercised subject to such conditions and in respect of such areas as may be specified in the notification. (3) No order shall be passed under this section which adversely affects any person unless such person has been given a reasona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the point of retrospectivity he had no case to urge. The primary challenge against the constitutional provisions being out of the way, it is evident that hardly anything else survives in the writ petition. The impugned order of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ambala, annexure P-6, being admittedly appealable, the petitioners must necessarily be confined to their ordinary remedy by way of appeal. Merely because they had chosen not to resort to the same or had allowed the said remedy to become time-barred by preferring the present writ petition after more than four months of the order which was passed in the presence of one of the partners of the petitioners is no ground for affording them extraordinary remedy or the writ ju....