9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any grievance over the alleged impropriety of the final order of assessment. But, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Khosla and Co. (Private) Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.)., which was rendered on 18th January, 1966, the petitioners have come up to this court in January, 1969, for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate direction to quash the order dated 15th March, 1968, which relates to the assessment year 1966-67, on the ground that they are entitled to a refund of the moneys paid over by them to the revenue, or in the alternative, for a re-investigation of the record and the facts therein to find whether the levy of tax was under a mistake of fact and if so w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitution is not intended to circumvent other remedies where they can well be resorted to. These are not the cases where other remedies are inadequate or unsuitable or the imminence of the situation warrants immediate relief under article 226 of the Constitution. Apart from these considerations, inasmuch as the orders of assessments were made more than four or five years before, or even more in some of the cases, the long delay in resorting to this court is also a factor dissuading it from exercising its discretion. We feel justified in taking that view having regard to the ratio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in M/s. Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi[1970] 25 S.T.C. 289 (S.C.). In our opinion, the question of refund is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the date of final order of assessment and the date when the petitioner seeks for a refund of the same and if it appears that the petitioner at an earlier stage was not aggrieved by that order, it would not be a fit and proper case to exercise my discretion under article 226 and interfere and much less to declare a final order of assessment as illegal, with a consequential entitlement to the petitioner to get a refund of the taxes paid thereunder in a summary fashion. Mr. V.K. Thiruvenkatachari, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, strenuously contended that this is a case in which there has not been an inordinate delay, though the petitioners did not avail themselves of the other remedies under the Act. However justifiable the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
