9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettled positions and re-open matters without any explanation for the delay. No reason to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. - Writ Petition No. 1062 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2018 - M. S. Sanklecha And Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ. Mr. N. C. Mohanty, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 23rd April, 2015 passed by the Income-Tax Settlement Commission (the Commission). The impugned order dated 23rd April, 2015 has been passed under Section 245(D)(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... informed the petitioner that the impugned order could be subject matter of challenge in a writ petition in this Court. From the chronology set out in the petition, it appears thereafter, that the petitioner moved to engage an Advocate and finally filed a petition only on 16th November, 2016. 5. The explanation for the laches/delay by the petitioners in moving the Court does not inspire any confidence. The fact that the officers were busy with time barring assessments does not absolve them from taking proper action to challenge the orders of the Commission, which according to them, is without jurisdiction and/or contrary to the Statute. This not taking action is evidence of negligence or caring less about this issue. The extra-ordinary w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, the Parliament has not provided for any Appeal from orders of the Commission. This with the hope that the order of the Commission would finally bring an end to a dispute between a party who has approached the Commission and the Revenue Department. It is in these circumstances that a party who seeks to approach the Court to challenge the orders of the Commission, must act expeditiously and ensure that the other party is not put to any prejudice because of the delay. Entertaining petition after almost over a period of one and half year would upset the settled positions and re-open matters without any explanation for the delay. 7. In the above view, we see no reason to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
