TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.01.2022. This writ petition is filed on 18.09.2024. 3. The petitioner, admittedly, did not prefer any appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 06.01.2022. The singular argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that providing the DRC-07 before passing the Order-in-Original was mandatory and the same was issued only on 24.09.2024. Thus, even if Order-in-Original is not called in question, the bank attachment founded upon a defective Order-in-Original without furnishing DRC-07 is liable to be interfered with. 4. Ms. Pravalika, learned counsel representing Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, opposed the prayer on the basis of memo filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and urged that the DRC-07 was ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at their own that an order passed by a court is valid or void. A party to the lis or the third party who considers an order passed by a court as voidable or non est, must approach the court of competent jurisdiction to have the said order set aside on such grounds, as may be available in law..." (Emphasis Supplied) 7. In Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia (supra), it was held as under: "16. It is a settled legal proposition that even if an order is void, it requires to be so declared by a competent forum and it is not permissible for any person to ignore the same merely because in his opinion the order is void. In State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar ManjeriManikothNaduvil [(1996) 1 SCC 435], Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the order lacks inherent jurisdiction/competence and therefore, it comes to the conclusion that the order suffers from patent and latent invalidity. 19. Thus, from the above it emerges that even if the order/notification is void/voidable, the party aggrieved by the same cannot decide that the said order/notification is not binding upon it. It has to approach the court for seeking such declaration. The order may be hypothetically a nullity and even if its invalidity is challenged before the court in a given circumstance, the court may refuse to quash the same on various grounds including the standing of the petitioner or on the ground of delay or on the doctrine of waiver or any other legal reason. The order may be void for one purpos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initiation of the suo motu proceedings by the Board was, that it was not initiated on intimation by the State Land Board about the non-filing of the statement as required by Section 85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In our opinion, this is not a case where the infirmity is fundamental. It is unnecessary to consider the matter further. 8. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., (Re-issue) Vol. 1(1) in para 26, p. 31, it is stated, thus: "If an act or decision, or an order or other instrument is invalid, it should, in principle, be null and void for all purposes; and it has been said that there are no degrees of nullity. Even though such an act is wrong and lacking in jurisdiction, however, it subsists and remains fully effective....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here the brand of invalidity is plainly visible: for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the court. The necessity of recourse to the court has been pointed out repeatedly in the House of Lords and Privy Council without distinction between patent and latent defects." The above statement of the law supports our view that the order of the Board dated 28-6-1977, declining to implead Respondents 3 and 4 (which stood confirmed in revision) concludes the matter against Respondents 3 and 4." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. In Shiv Chander Kapoor (supra), the Supreme Court held as under: "23. In Wade's Administrative Law, 6th edn. at pp. 351-53, there is an illuminating discussion of this to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e decisions proceeds on fallacious premise. For, these decisions are premised on the logic that provision such as Section 31 of the 1995 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the assessee may approach the High Court before the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ petition on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice....