9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irect the authorities to reopen these assessment orders, apply the law as has developed subsequently and extend such concession or benefits that the petitioner may become entitled to. On such reassessment, applying the law as it stood then, particularly in terms of the law as has been laid down by this court in the case of Dharmendra Trading Company and connected matters, disposed of on April 4, 1979. Petitioner has also sought further directions as contained in the order of this court dated March 11, 1998 passed in W.P. Nos. 20708-20712 of 1991 at the instance of the very petitioner. The submission of Sri S.G. Shivaram, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents in spite of such directions which had been contained in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, the assessment for the years in question had been completed. An incentive or a benefit is claimed as part of the assessment. If the petitioner was aggrieved with the determination of tax liability in such assessment she could have pursued the matter urging upon the appellate authority to apply the correct law and to set right an erroneous assessment order. Unfortunately, the petitioner had not resorted to that course of action. On the other hand, it appears, that the petitioner had sought for refund along with the letter dated October 4, 1990 and such an application came to be rejected in terms of the endorsement dated May 9, 1991 vide annexure E albeit on the ground that the petitioner's unit was engaged in decortication of groundn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is application for refund, a subject-matter of this petition and on the other hand, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the order on the premise that no order has been passed and on the assumption the application was still under consideration. If the petitioner should have made this endorsement dated May 9, 1991 also the subject-matter of the writ petition, the endorsement could have been quashed, and further consequences could have undoubtedly followed. But unfortunately, for the petitioner that was not the case. The petitioner, without realising its follies and pursuing incorrect remedies, it appears, had filed yet another application dated March 11, 2002 before the assessing authority praying for rectification of the assessment orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im benefit. It may be true that the development of law might have taken place over a period of time and if persons like petitioner become entitled to, they can claim such benefit as and when the law developed for the period thereafter. Insofar as tax matters are concerned, determination of liabilities is from year to year and not at any point of time. The liability is in terms of the assessment years and unless the very orders for each of the assessment years are pursued they get concluded. It is not as though a concluded assessment order can be reopened at any and every point of time as and when the law has developed subsequently. In the case of the petitioner, the assessment years got concluded way back in terms of the orders pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
