9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the objections and held in favour of reassessment and reopening of the assessment as per section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3.. Appellants here challenged the notice and the proceedings in the High Court vide M.P. Nos. 1254 of 1990, 1257 of 1990 and M.P. No. 1208 of 1990. 4.. Learned single Judge while disposing of the petitions issued following directions as shown in para 3 of the impugned order: (a) The petitioner is granted three week s time from the date of this order to file reply to the notice (annexure A) before the taxing authority and is permitted to raise question of jurisdiction as well before it as is contended here. (b) The taxing authority is directed to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal under section 38 of the Act and have further right of making a request for reference under section 44 of the Act. As such, learned single Judge relying on a case (Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd.) reported in [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC); AIR 1985 SC 330; (1985) 58 Comp Cas 145 dismissed the petitions. Hence these four appeals. 7.. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Choudhary has submitted that despite remand and direction by learned single Judge in M.P. Nos. 1254, 1257 and 1208 of 1990 the taxing authority has not decided the question of jurisdiction and that there is no evidence to show the presence of two mandatory conditions as provided under section 19(1) of the Act. 8.. It has also been submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er expiry of 8 years and, therefore, it was held that there was patent lack of jurisdiction. This is not the case here. 14.. Learned counsel then referred to a case reported in [1980] 121 ITR 551 (Kar) (T.T. Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle III, Bangalore). The facts of that case are different. It has rightly been observed in that case that article 226(3) of the Constitution which restricts the scope of power of High Court under article 226 should be construed strictly and if the High Court is of opinion that alternative remedy does not provide adequate relief jurisdiction under article 226 has to be exercised in an appropriate case. In this case learned single Judge has found that there is alternative remedy and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
