Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner does not render an order null and void; rather, such illegality can be remedied through proper legal proceedings (!) .

• Orders made without inherent jurisdiction are considered null and void ab initio, whereas orders resulting from exercise of wrongful jurisdiction are illegal but not necessarily null and void, and can be cured (!) .

• Proceedings for assessment under fiscal statutes are not judicial in nature and do not involve adjudication of disputes between parties; therefore, the law applicable to judicial proceedings may not directly apply (!) .

• An irregular, wrong, or illegal order, where the authority had jurisdiction, is not automatically null and void. Such an order can be challenged and rectified through appropriate legal channels, unless it is void due to lack of jurisdiction from the outset (!) (!) .

• An assessment order passed within the statutory time limit, even if irregular or tainted by procedural errors, is not necessarily null and void. Such irregularities do not automatically invalidate the order if the authority had jurisdiction (!) (!) .

• The distinction exists between orders that are null and void due to lack of jurisdiction and those that are illegal or irregular but made within jurisdiction. The former are incurably null, while the latter can be cured or rectified (!) .

• The assessment proceedings are not akin to judicial proceedings, and irregularities during the process do not automatically result in nullity unless they involve a fundamental lack of jurisdiction (!) .

• If an assessment order is set aside by an appellate authority, the fresh assessment must be completed within the prescribed statutory period from the communication of the appellate order. Passing the assessment within this period is valid, even if the assessment order appears to be anti-dated, provided it falls within the statutory time frame (!) (!) .

• The Court emphasizes that procedural irregularities or errors committed during assessment proceedings, while improper, do not necessarily render the orders null and void if the authority had jurisdiction and the assessment was completed within the statutory period (!) .

• Ultimately, the Court upheld that the directions for fresh assessments, after setting aside the earlier orders due to procedural irregularities, were justified and within legal bounds, and dismissed the appeals accordingly (!) (!) (!) .