Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (2) TMI 784

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... short, "the Central Act"). On the basis of assessment made for the years 1973-74 to 1978-79 under the State Act and the Central Act, the Assessing Authority created liability of Rs. 2,39,013 against the assessee. Due to its failure to satisfy the demand, the assessee's land bearing Khasra No. 65/17 (8 kanals), 65/18 (7 kanals), killa No. 323, Khatoni No. 477, situated in Mewla Maharajpur, Faridabad was attached by Collector-cum-Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Faridabad vide his order dated August 17, 1985 passed under section 72 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short, "the 1887 Act"). Intimation of the attachment was duly sent to Sub-Registrar/Tehsildar, Faridabad, but the property could not be sold for almost 9 years due .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notice dated October 20, 1997 issued by the respondent against the present appellant is divided as the same has no merit. After considering the record of this case and the arguments of both sides in this matter, I am of the considered view that respondent has no right to attach the property after making the payment of the principal amount by the appellant. I therefore, accept the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order dated October 20, 1997 issued by the respondent against the appellant. The file is consigned to record room after taking due process." 5.. Feeling aggrieved by the order of District Collector, Faridabad, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority filed an appeal before Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgao .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Commissioner, allowing the request for review of his own order dated October 5, 2001 is based on the fact that the respondent could not mention any law earlier under which interest could have been charged and was now presenting this provision of the law, under which interest can be charged. However, the respondent has not explained in his review petition before the Commissioner as to why he did not bring this fact to his notice during the earlier proceedings when the notification to this effect had been issued on April 1, 2000. The counsel for the respondent was repeatedly asked as to why he did not bring this notification to the notice of the Commissioner during the arguments before him in respect of his order dated October 5, 2001. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dated October 5, 2001 as he did not raise this issue before the Commissioner either in writing or at the time of arguments. Therefore, he had applied for review of the Commissioner's order on the basis of a false statement in order to cover up his own ignorance during the earlier proceedings before the Commissioner. The request for review was therefore vitiated because of misrepresentation. On these grounds, therefore, I accept the appeal, set aside the order dated September 6, 2002 of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division and uphold his earlier order dated October 5, 2001. " 7.. We have heard Shri Jaswant Singh, learned Senior Deputy Advocate-General and perused the record. In our opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any juri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... overlook the fact that the appeal filed by the Assessing Authority against order dated December 23, 1997 was barred by time. 8.. The learned Senior Deputy Advocate-General could not show as to how the appeal filed on July 6, 1999 against order dated December 23, 1997 could be treated as within limitation. He also failed to refer to any provision under which order dated October 5, 2001 passed by the Commissioner could be reviewed and that the same suffered from any error apparent. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with an otherwise well-reasoned order passed by respondent No. 2 vide which he quashed order dated September 6, 2002. 9.. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates