2022 (4) TMI 644

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... PETITIONER : ADVS. K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, R.JAIKRISHNA AND UTHARA ASOKAN RESPONDENTS : ADV SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS JUDGMENT BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order issued by the 1st respondent for the periods October 2015 to June 2017 covering the financial years 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. According to the petitioner, the proceedings .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... el for petitioner contended that Ext.P2 is perverse, liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Sri.P.R.Sreejith, the learned Standing Counsel, who took notice on behalf of the respondents, contended that the impugned order is appealable and that the contention raised by the petitioner requires appreciation of disputed facts and therefore, this Court ought not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h case the period will extend to five years. In the impugned order, the assessing officer had concluded that there was suppression and hence the period of thirty months will not apply. 5. The above noted conclusion is based on an appreciation of disputed facts. Therefore, in the light of the disputed questions of fact, which are clearly evident from the impugned order of assessment, I am of the v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X