2022 (2) TMI 987

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have received notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 24.12.2019, pursuant to which a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner. Petitioner claimed that no other notices were issued to the petitioner other than the aforementioned notice dated 24.12.2019, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. However, by order dated 15.03.2021, petitioner was served with a huge demand, on the basis of an assessment alleged to have been carried out under section 143(3) of the Act. Petitioner alleges that the order of assessment is bad in law since no notices other than the one under section 142(1) of the Act was ever served upon it and hence there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is Court revealing the true particulars. It was also submitted that, in any event, the issue raised by the petitioner requires an appreciation of disputed facts and hence, this Court ought not to interfere invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it was fairly conceded that there was a technical error in the disallowance of Rs. 2,18,27,419/-, which being an apparent error, can be rectified under section 154 of the Act. 6. On a consideration of the contentions raised by both parties, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for more reasons than one. 7. The assessment order under challenge was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....complain, that in the last notice issued he was not granted reasonable time to respond, especially when such a request for time was not even sought as a reply to the last notice. 10. In this context, the absence of pleading about the five notices issued to the petitioner and the omission to reveal in the writ petition, the receipt of notices is singularly detrimental to the petitioner. In the writ petition, petitioner asserted that it had not received any notice other than the notice dated 24.12.2019. Petitioner failed to divulge the receipt of five other notices. This conduct also must deprive the petitioner of the benefit of exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In any event, it i....