2019 (7) TMI 651

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se Act, 1944 (Act) was dismissed. 2] The grievance of the petitioner is to the decision making process of the Tribunal in passing the impugned order dated 11th May 2018. This inasmuch as the impugned order dated 11th May 2018 ignores earlier orders in respect of the same petitioner-assessee being final orders No.A/8537385374/ 17/EB dated 20th September 2016 and No.A/8674186742/ 17/EB dated 21st March 2017, which according to the petitioner is on identical facts. This even after recording the same, without in any manner dealing with it even remotely. It is submitted the Tribunal had in petitioner's own case by orders dated 20th September 2016 (supra) and 21st March 2017 (supra) had held that extended period of limitation could not be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal under Section 35C of the Act. This for the reason that an alternate remedy of appeal is provided under Section 35G of the Act on a substantial question of law is available to the party aggrieved. However, the bar of entertaining a petition in view of an alternate remedy being available, is a self-imposed bar. Therefore, where the actions of quasi-judicial authority are in breach of natural justice such is an order without reasons, i.e., without considering the submission of the party, then we would exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Shivhare (supra) has specifically recorded the above exception. Moreover, in cases involving breach of natural justice....