2019 (1) TMI 1760

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Further it is pointed out that Exts.P1 and P2 orders have been issued under Section 271B for the assessment year 2011-2012 and 2015-2016 against the petitioner. Aggrieved by those orders, the petitioner has filed appeals and stay applications before the 2nd respondent. While waiting orders on the stay applications, it was informed as per the impugned Exts.P3 and P4 communications that the appeals are defective and the defects have to be cured within 15 days. Exts.P5 and P6 communications were served on the petitioner stating that stay applications are rejected in the light of defective appeals and that liberty was granted to file fresh stay applications as and when the defects are cured. Exts.P7 and P9 app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the interest of justice but admittedly, result in failure of justice etc. It is pointed out that the impugned action of the respondents in dismissing the appeals in terms of the impugned Exts.P11 and P12 proceedings is per se illegal and improper and that some breathing time should have been given to the petitioner to clear all the defects, so that their appeals and stay applications could have been considered and decided on merits etc. 5. Having heard both sides and after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take the view that the impugned rejection orders Exts.P11 and P12 would warrant interdiction in these writ proceedings, so that the appeals and stay applications could be decided on....