9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order dated December 24, 2012. Therefore, it is unable to accept the statement of the petitioner that he was not aware of the order dated December 24, 2012. This appears to be an afterthought. He could not have filed the copy of the order dated December 24, 2012 unless he had received a copy of the same. Unofficial obtainment of copy of order - Held that:- any such system of unofficially obtaining copies of the assessment orders is not approved. The assessment order as well as the letter dated December 24, 2012 was correctly addressed to the petitioner. They have been entered in the register and shown to have been dispatched. Demand of tax - Petitioner contended that demand runs into more than a crore of rupees and he is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order dated December 24, 2012 and demand notice issued by memo No. 726 dated December 24, 2012 and further demand notices issued on August 28, 2014. 2. Since the petitioner had challenged the order dated December 24, 2012 after almost two years, on November 3, 2014 we had issued notice in the following terms: Issue notice, returnable for November 25, 2014. As Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents, no formal notice need be issued. At this stage, we are confining notice only to the allegation of the petitioner that the assessment order dated December 24, 2012 was never served upon him and he has obtained copy of the same only after the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had received a copy of the same. 5. It was urged that the petitioner may have unofficially obtained such a copy. We cannot approve of any such system of unofficially obtaining copies of the assessment orders. The assessment order as well as the letter dated December 24, 2012 was correctly addressed to the petitioner. They have been entered in the register and shown to have been dispatched. We shall presume that the Government functionaries have acted in accordance with the rules and keeping in view the fact that we are unable to accept the submission of the petitioner that he unofficially obtained the copy of the assessment order, we cannot entertain this petition at this belated stage, especially when the petitioner has not challenged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the order dated December 24, 2012 was served upon him. He should even himself have made some effort to find out what was the result of the hearing which was to take place on December 22, 2012. 8. Lastly, it was contended by Sri A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the demand runs into more than a crore of rupees and the petitioner is a small businessman and would be doomed if he has to pay this amount. 9. We cannot accept this prayer in view of what we have held above. Further we find that this stand of the petitioner that he is a poor person is also incorrect. From the record, we find that on November 27, 2012, the petitioner made a prayer to the Superintendent of Taxes that he would be dumping about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
