Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Sugars Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director S. Jagatheesan – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Madurai, Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of search, settlement applications, interim court orders, and subsequent assessment and recovery notices. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim that assessment orders were void due to lack of jurisdiction and failure to comply with statutory limitation periods upon abatement of settlement proceedings. (Para 3) |
| 3. revenue's contention that assessment orders were validly passed under court-granted liberty and that petitioners are barred by estoppel and failure to exhaust alternative remedies. (Para 4) |
| 4. court finds assessment orders valid under specific interim protections; jurisdiction was not divested; parties are bound by the court's earlier orders regarding limitation. (Para 5) |
| 5. writ petitions challenging the assessment orders are dismissed. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
A. The Petitions :
M/s. Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Sugars Private Limited (DSSPL), incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, and represented by its Managing Director, S.Jegatheesan, and M/s. V.V.Mineral (VVM), a registered partnership firm represented by its partner, S.Jegatheesan, have filed these Writ Petitions. Both entities claim to be part of M/s. V.V. Group is a conglomerate
Assessment orders passed during the pendency of settlement proceedings under court-sanctioned interim liberty are not void ab initio, and the enforcement of such orders is permissible upon the reject....
The court emphasized the exclusive jurisdiction of the Interim Board over settlement applications filed after 31.01.2021 and the impact of circulars issued by the CBDT in determining the validity of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of a writ petition challenging Assessment Orders under the CST Act, considering grounds of limitation, lack of opportunity for he....
:PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - When the cases are not listed on a particular day more specifically on the day of expiry of an interim order, then the parties cannot be penalised or blamed for non-listing ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy under taxing law is a statutory remedy and not an alternative remedy.
The assessment order was invalid as it was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, necessitating adherence to statutory timelines.
Limitation would arise under Section 29(6) of the Act, only in the event and at the stage of the application filed under Section 32 being allowed.
Retrospective amendments cannot affect vested rights, and valid applications filed before such amendments remain enforceable.
The court established that the CBDT cannot impose additional eligibility conditions for settlement applications beyond what is prescribed in the Income Tax Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
