Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS
 
 
From the Courts »
 Digipro Import & Export Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
  CIT vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (Supreme Court)
  DCIT vs. Hita Land Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)
 GTC Industries Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) (Special Bench)
 Premlata Purshottam Paldiwal vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)
 CIT vs. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd (Bombay High Court)
  ACIT vs. St. Mary’s Rubbers Private Ltd (ITAT Cochin)
 DCIT vs. Hita Land Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)
  Liladhar T Khushlani vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court)
 Liladhar T Khushlani vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court)
 CIT vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (Supreme Court)

Aroni Commercials Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
August, 13th 2014

S. 147/ 148: Writ Petition challenging lack of jurisdiction to issue s. 148 notice on the ground that it is based on ‘change of opinion’ & preconditions of s. 147 are not satisfied is maintainable

The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge a notice issued u/s 148 to reopen the assessment. The department relied on the judgement of the Madras High Court in JCIT vs. Kalanithi Maran and argued that a Writ Petition to challenge a notice issued u/s 148 was not maintainable. HELD by the High Court rejecting the plea:

The argument, based on JCIT vs. Kalanithi Maran, that this Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner should be left to avail of the statutory remedies available under the Act is not acceptable. The decision of the Madras High Court in Kalanithi Maran proceeded on the basis that the dispute urged before it were with regard to adjudicatory facts and not with regard to jurisdictional facts as raised in this petition.

The Madras High Court itself points out that that when an assessment sought to be reopened by an Officer who is not competent to do so or where on the face of it would appear that the reopening is barred by limitation or lacks inherent jurisdiction, the court would certainly entertain a challenge to the reopening notice in its writ jurisdiction. The Madras High Court itself drew a distinction between the adjudicating facts and jurisdictional facts. It was in the above context that challenges to the reopening notice u/s 147 and 148 of the Act was not interfered with by the Madras High Court as the challenge before it appears to have been with regard to adjudicating facts as contrasted with the jurisdictional facts raised in this case. Jurisdictional facts are those facts which gives jurisdiction to enter upon enquiry,

while adjudicatory facts come up for consideration after validly entering upon enquiry i.e. having jurisdiction. In this case, the challenge is based on lack of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice by the AO on the ground that the pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147 of the Act is not satisfied i.e. notice should not be on account of the change of opinion. It is only when jurisdictional facts are satisfied will the AO acquire the authority to deal with the matter on adjudicatory facts. The decision of the Madras High Court is of no avail in the facts of the present case. It may be pointed out that there could be occasions where jurisdictional facts could itself be a matter of factual enquiry. i.e. leading of evidence and appreciation of facts. In such a case even if the challenge is with regard to jurisdictional facts, yet the Court in its discretion may not entertain the petition as it could be best left for determination before the authorities under the Act.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Application Management Solutions Application Management System Application Management Software System Application Management Development Application Management Software Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions