You may also like...
-
கூட்டுறவு சங்கத்திற்கு தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட தலைவர், துணைத் தலைவர் ஆகியோர் முறைகேட்டில் ஈடுபட்டால், அவர்களை இடைநீக்கம் செய்ய கூட்டுறவு சங்கங்களின் பதிவாளருக்க் அதிகாரம் வழங்கி கொண்டுவரப்பட்ட சட்டத்திருத்தம் செல்லும் என சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் தீர்ப்பளித்துள்ளது.
by Sekar Reporter · Published October 7, 2021
-
already held by this court, the first respondent, who recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment under section 148(2), has no jurisdiction over the appellant, to issue notice dated 28.03.2018 under section 148(1). Though the files pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the appellant were transferred, the second respondent has no authority to continue the reassessment proceedings under section 129 and hence, the notice dated 14.12.2018 issued by him is also held to be invalid. The invalid notices so issued by the respondents vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings initiated against the appellant. Admittedly, no notice under section 148 was issued by the second respondent, who is the jurisdictional assessing officer, for reassessment of the return of income of the appellant, within the time frame stipulated under the Act. In this case, the limitation period of six years for reopening the assessment for the year 2011-12 under section 147 of the Act, came to an end on 31.03.2018. In such circumstances, there is no requirement for this court to go into the other issue based on the factual matrix projected by the appellant i.e., whether the appellant has disclosed fully and truly all the material particulars that are necessary for assessment for the relevant assessment year. In the ultimate analysis, the writ appeal stands allowed by setting aside the notices impugned in the writ petition and the order impugned herein. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.) 27.06.2022
by Sekar Reporter · Published July 1, 2022
-
justices M Sathyanarayanan and P Rajamanickam stated that the litigant has not submitted any materials to support his claim that only a Kallar community member should have been appointed in the above post. They also pointed out that it is a service portfolio case and not a PIL and the litigant, despite being a practising advocate and a registered political party member, had not paid attention to the fact. Criticising the litigant for wasting the court’s time, the judge dismissed the PIL and directed the litigant to pay Rs 10,000 as cost to any one Kallar Reclamation school of his choice within two weeks.
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 1, 2020