Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe, JJ
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. binding siemens precedent applies despite review dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. facts show 10-year delay after form-h notice. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. rule 25 mandates reasonable time for assessment completion. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. inordinate delay prejudices assessee, violates natural justice. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. delayed assessments quashed as unreasonably belated. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
Oral Judgment (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.) :-
Writ Petition No. 637 of 2024
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:-
“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, calling for the records of the case and after going into the question of legality and propriety thereof, be pleased to hold that the Assessment Order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Cess Officer (Respondent No.3) after a lapse of three years from the end of the year, i.e. on or before 31.03.2014, is barred by limitatio
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
