2000 PLP 3598 (PTD)
ATTUKAL JEWELLERY Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and others
| Citation | 2000 PLP 3598 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 238 I T R 185 |
| Bench Members | P. Shanmugam, J |
| Parties | ATTUKAL JEWELLERY Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and others |
| Primary Law | Writ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 3598 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Writ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 3598 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 238 I T R 185 bench comprising: P. Shanmugam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 3598 (PTD) (ATTUKAL JEWELLERY Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- T.M. Sreedharan and N. Unnikrishnan for Petitioner.
- P.K.R. Menon and George K. George for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Altemate remedy available
No appearance on behalf of petitioner when impugned order was passed
Constitution of India, Art.226. Held, dismissing the writ petition, that the petitioner had challenged an order of the Tribunal. The petition was not maintainable since if the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision rendered. The only course open to the petitioner was to file a reference application. The point that was raised by the petitioner was that this was an ex parte order. From the order, it could be seen that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. That apart, order was passed on August 29, 1997, and the application was filed only on January 12, 1999.
Judgment & Decree
Altemate remedy available
No appearance on behalf of petitioner when impugned order was passed
Constitution of India, Art.226. Held, dismissing the writ petition, that the petitioner had challenged an order of the Tribunal. The petition was not maintainable since if the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision rendered. The only course open to the petitioner was to file a reference application. The point that was raised by the petitioner was that this was an ex parte order. From the order, it could be seen that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. That apart, order was passed on August 29, 1997, and the application was filed only on January 12, 1999. T.M. Sreedharan and N. Unnikrishnan for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon and George K. George for Respondent. The petitioner challenges Exh. P-3 order of The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In my view, this original petition is not maintainable since if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision rendered, the only course open to the petitioner is to file a reference application. The point that is' raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is an ex parte order. His application Exh. P-4 could not be considered because of the Tribunal not functioning. From the order, it could be seen that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. In Exh. P-4, it is not stated that the petitioner had entered appearance. That apart, the order was passed on August 29, 1997, and the application was filed only on January 12, 1999. In the above circumstances, prima facie, I do not find any bona fides in the application. This appears to be made only for the purpose of moving under Samadhan Scheme. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with Exh. P-3 order by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the petitioner to move the Tribunal to consider the application. The Tribunal shall decide the matter uninfluenced by arty of the observations contained in this judgment. Original petition is accordingly dismissed. M.B.A./85/FC Petition dismissed