9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement with the respondent on 27-10-1999 for the construction of the Mattancherry Bridge on B.O.T. basis. According to the petitioner, they had entered into Ext. P1 agreement dated 3-12-1999 with the 4th respondent, in which they were appointed as the E.P.C. contractor and by supplementary agreement dated 6-1-2001, the 1st respondent had recognized the 4th respondent as the Concessionaire. 2. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the levy is without jurisdiction. It was also argued that since the demand was barred by time, by virtue of Sec. 17(6) and (7) of the Act. According to him on these contentions, a writ petition is maintainable against an order of assessment. Counsel also placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and another v. Union of India and others [2006 (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction. 5. The petitioner could not succeed in showing any violation of principles of natural justice and in fact no attempt was made to canvass this point. Relying on J.M. Baxi Co. Gujarat v. Commissioner of Customs, New Kandla and another [2001(9) SCC 275], petitioner contended that since the assessment is time barred the petitioner should not be relegated to pursue the alternate remedy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
