9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory provisions relied upon by Ld. ASG to take care of the contingencies sought to be exploited by the petitioner/assessee company for filibustering the adjudication. In the backdrop of the recorded discussion surrounding the pure legal issues raised by the parties, affidavits are not invited. Allegations made are therefore deemed to be denied. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P. 26509 (W) of 2017 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2017 - Mr. Subrata Talukdar, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. J. K. Mittal Mr. Paritosh Sinha Ms. Aritra Chakraborty And Mr. Parag Chaturvedi For The Respondent : Mr. Koushik Chanda Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari And Mr. Somnath Ganguli Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee ORDER The short point of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice of demand was issued on 13th May, 2016. Additionally, Learned Counsel points out, the Hearing/Adjudicating Authority under Section 4 (B) (b) (supra) was under the lawful obligation to provide reasons for not concluding the proceedings within the period provided under Section 4 (B) (b) (supra). In the absence of such reasons, the order determining the demand dated 14th July, 2017 cannot be sustained. The further point argued by Mr. Mittal is that the Respondent No.2 is the only officer who heard the petitioner and, therefore, the Demand having been decided by a different Respondent No.1, cannot be sustained. Relying on the Authority of AIR 1959 SC 308 learned Counsel argues that it is now trite law that the person who heard is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and substitution of the law shall not effect any investigation, enquiry or verification. Learned ASG therefore submits on the purposive interpretation of the legal provisions in the light of the deeming provisions under Section 3(supra) that it never was the intention of the legislature to frustrate a pending/continuing adjudication. Having considered the submissions as well as the materials placed, this Court finds that the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, are based on hyper technicalities which, in the considered view of this Court, are not of a nature so as to derail the adjudication process. This Court is satisfied that the statutory provisions relied upon by Ld. ASG to take care of the contingencies so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
