9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entered into and decided, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, being the disputed questions of fact, might be requiring proof of so many other factual aspects. Consequently, we do not find any ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, on the argument advanced, so as to entertain the writ petition and to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy for the period with effect from April, 2018 to January, 2023. It is clarified that the writ petition survives for the period from the July, 2017 to March 2018. - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N For the Petitioner: Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy For the Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... askar Reddy and Ms. Smitha Rohini, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. B. Mukharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 5. Hence issuance of notice is dispensed with. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that a similar writ petition was taken up for consideration by the Hon'ble Division Bench-l, of this Court in W.P. No. 2123 of 2024, and the said Division Bench-I has passed an interim order directing the respondent authorities not to pass any final order in the proceeding initiated pursuant to show cause notice under the challenge in that writ petition. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itor i.e. P. Nagesh on 05.08.2023 which were submitted by the tax payer at the time of inspection . 12. After mentioning the details of those documents, it further mentions as under:- the entire 18 items of the above material is not the basis for any proposals of liability in the show cause notice and therefore there is no prejudice caused to the tax payer. And again no liability is finalised based on the incriminating material and therefore no prejudice caused to the tax payer. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said P. Nagesh was not authorized to receive the documents. 14. The submission as advanced by the petitioner s counsel with respect to the return of the documents raises a disputed question of fact. There is sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
