9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them disclose that the petitioner had approached the Court on an earlier occasion and were permitted to reiterate the same grounds at the completion of the assessment. As far as the validity of the assessment goes, the Court notices that a number of hearings took place before the AO, who called for the documents not at one go, but at least at two separate occasions. The proceedings completed on 15.11.2016 and in the circumstances, the petitioner’s complaint that it was deprived of an opportunity to cross examine is hardly a matter for this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is not in every case where violation of natural justice is complained of that the Court exercises its special jurisdiction to intervene in the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and further proceedings led to the matter being dropped by the Central Excise authorities. Upon finding no response, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)8857/2016 for a direction to quash the reassessment notice. This was permitted to be withdrawn on 28.09.2016 when the Court recorded as follows: - After some hearing, Mr. Rajesh Mahna, counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition and urge contentions with respect to the reopening of the assessment before the revenue authority. Liberty granted. The writ petition along with the pending applications is dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue had, in the meanwhile, before the petitioner approached this Court, rejected the ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 227 DLT 623. It is evident from the above discussion that the petitioner is approaching this Court in a second inning as it were, vis-a-vis the validity of the reassessment notice. Its previous attempt to seek an order quashing the reassessment notice failed as this Court was satisfied that the reasons furnished as well as the consequential order dated 08.08.2016, could stand the scrutiny of law. In the circumstances, its reiteration and regurgitation as it were on the grounds assailing the reassessment notice are precluded. The reliance on the decisions in the opinion of the Court is not appropriate because none of them disclose that the petitioner had ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
