9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te for the petitioner, the court made the following order: The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records of the second and third respondents in Form No. III, dated 19th February, 1982, issued to the petitioner on 22nd February, 1982, and quash the same as illegal by the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, directing respondents 2 and 3 to forbear from proceeding further in pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, taking up the stand that the third respondent is not empowered to issue the distraint order. Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, there is scope for delegation and in the absence of a specific plea in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the third respondent is not at all empowered to issue the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n notified. It cannot be stated that there is a disparity as such. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 10,170 and that has not been adjusted. If, in fact, such amount has been paid, the petitioner can bring this to the notice of the authorities concerned and seek to reduce the quantum of tax claimed. I find that in this case allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the grounds of attack, this Court will be justified in declining to entertain the writ proceedings and issue rule nisi. In matters in the nature of highly prerogative writs, it is absolutely essential that the party seeking the same sets forth precisely the grounds of attack, so that the opposite party may be called upon to answer the same with equal specification. Neither this Court nor the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
