TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (3) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anuary 21, 1989, issued to the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1887 of 1989, the Commissioner has stated : ". . . 2. On perusal of the records, it is observed that your claim of income-tax liability of Rs. 44,09,723 for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1981-82 and wealth-tax liability of Rs. 47,893 for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82 are allowed as a deduction while computing the net wealth. This deduction was allowed on the basis of your claim of self assessment taxes having been paid under the Income-tax and Wealth-tax Acts for the above years. The above liabilities which are claimed by you and allowed while computing the net wealth for the year under consideration are the liabilities considered as outstanding for mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of section 2(m)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act as these are liabilities outstanding for more than 12 months on the valuation date for the assessment year 1982-83. To the above extent, I consider that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 1, therefore, propose to revise the order of the Wealth-tax Officer dated March 27, 1987, under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act." After stating so, the notice has requested the parties to appear either in person or through their authorised representative on March 8, 1989, at 3.30 p.m. and to show cause as to why such order or any other order as deemed fit be not passed. It is as against these notices issued under the Wealth-tax Act that the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel pressed into service the decision in the case of CWT v. J. K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 552. In this case, the Supreme Court has clearly stated (headnote) : "The expression 'outstanding' in section 2(m)(iii)(a) and (b) has to be construed in the background of the phrase 'amount of tax ... payable in consequence of an order, and in that context it must mean remaining unpaid after the obligation to pay is incurred." According to this decision, Mr. J. P. Shah states that the notice has to be construed as not valid and the parties should not be driven to the hierarchy, of proceedings before the wealth-tax authorities. Both the section and the Supreme Court decision, according to Mr. J. P. Shah, are clear enough to up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such alternative remedies as appeals and reference to the High Court was not, however, always a sufficient reason for refusing a party quick relief by writ or order prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such action. When the Constitution conferred on the High Courts the power to give relief, it became the duty of the courts to give such relief in fit cases and the courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief were refused without adequate reasons." We are not able to appreciate this submission made by Mr. J. P. Shah. This is not a case where the Commissioner has no jurisdiction at all. We are definite that if the section and the Supreme Court decision cited before us are brought to the notice of ....