Law:

Section:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ - Maintainability of - Petitioner challenged reference of WTO to Valuation Officer against pending proceedings of assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73 - On appeal to Supreme Court order of WTO was upheld vide decision dated 16-12-1983 - Accordingly notices to continue with proceedings were issued by WTO in May 1984 - Petitioner instituted writ petitions asserting that proceedings had become time barred and that WTO had no jurisdiction to make any order of assessment - Whether where there were no disputed questions of fact, preliminary objection of revenue on maintainability of writ petitions was justified - Held, no Facts P, H and G were partners in a firm, J. The proceedings for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73 were pending against P's HUF due to the question of valuation of the assets of P's HUF in the firm S. The WTO had made a reference to the Valuation Officer and the HUF and firm had challenged the order of reference. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the order of the WTO was upheld by decision dated 16-12-1983. Accordingly, the ITO issued notices in May 1984 to continue with the pending proceedings. The petitioners instituted writ petitions asserting that the proceedings had become barred by time and, consequently, the WTO had no jurisdiction to make any order of assessment. The revenue raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that in the instant case a writ of prohibition could not be issued as three disputed questions of fact were involved, namely, (i) whether reference to the Valuation Officer by the WTO had been in regard to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 or the same had been confined to 1967-68 to 1972-73 only, (ii) whether the said reference was only with regard to P (HUF) or also in regard to the petitioner in these writ petitions, and (iii) whether the application which had been made on behalf of the assessee on 6-3-1979 and 29-2-1980, copies whereof had been filed along with the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit had the effect of estopping the petitioner-firm from raising the question of limitation. Held It is…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492