2017 (8) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondents : Mr. J. Narayanaswamy ORDER  Heard Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dated 15.02.2002, which is purported to be an order under Section 264 of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... powers under Section 220 (2A) of the Act, and to Stay the recovery of the interest during the pendency of this Writ Petition. The first respondent, while rejecting the Petition by the impugned order, opined that only the correctness, legality or the propriety of the order will come within the scope of power of revision under Section 264 of the Act, and the petitioner, having not challenged, eithe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deal with such Petition by the Central Board. 6. In fact, the petitioner has set out in the grounds of this Writ Petition, as to how, they failed to fulfill the parameters, required to be complied with under Section 220(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the first respondent should have considered the said Petition, by treating it as Petition under Section 220 (2A). 7. Therefore, considering the fa....