|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 1486 Records
-
2020 (3) TMI 1126
Levy of penalty - storage of goods even in an undisclosed unregistered godown - Section 66 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - petitioner opted for Compounding of Offences - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it was not merely a case of the goods being found at an unregistered godown, as can be seen from the detention order the allegations also were that on the date of the raid the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents regarding compliance of the provisions of the VAT Act in respect of transport of taxable goods. Section 75 of the VAT Act makes several acts and omissions by a dealer punishable. Had the petitioner contested the notice on merits and opposed the proposal for imposing penalty or handing down punishment, all aspects could have been gone into. The petitioner instead opted for compounding of offence. Thereupon the Superintendent of Taxes passed the composition order. Petitioner now cannot challenge it on merits.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1125
Release of detained goods - section 129 of GST Act - classification of goods - whether the Officers of Kerala would have a jurisdiction to detain and seize the goods or at the best could have intimated the jurisdictional Officer in Karnataka to initiate proper proceedings against the petitioner in view of the report? - HELD THAT:- It is evident that Section 129 opens with a non obstante clause empowering the Officers to detain and seize the goods, if it found to be in contravention of any of the any of the provisions of the Act and release of the vehicles, as per the conditions, enumerated, therein.
In case of a bonafide dispute with regard to the classification between a transitor of the goods and the squad officer, the squad officer may intercept the goods and detain them for the purpose of preparing the relevant papers for effective transmission to the judicial assessing officers and nothing beyond. In the present case, it is a case of bonafide miscalculation as to whether the goods would be exigible to 12% or 28%.
The upshot of the reasoning aforementioned is that the impugned order of detention Ext.P3(c) and consequential notices are not sustainable and hereby quashed - goods are directed to be released to the petitioner with a further direction that the inspecting authority of Kerala would prepare a report and submit the same to the assessing authority, Karnataka for taking action - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1124
Permission for withdrawal of petition - Whether demand raised in the assessment order Ext.P1 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 read with Section 44 of the GST Act? - HELD THAT:- The petitioner seeks the liberty of this court for withdrawal of this writ petition with a liberty to challenge the assessment order in accordance with law.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1123
Seizure of documents - proceeding under Section 70 of the OGST Act - grievance of the petitioner is that, since the documents called for by the OGST Authority has been seized by the CGST Authority, he is not in a position to supply the documents to the OGST Authority - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to apply for copies of the Documents required by him before the CGST authority within 15 (fifteen) days from today. If such an application is filed, the copies of the documents sought for shall be supplied within a period of three weeks from the date of his application.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1122
Refund of IGST - goods exported from India - Zero rated supplies - time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is ordered that the 3rd respondent or the competent authority of the respondents will take up the claim of the petitioner for grant of refund as referred to in Ext.P5 and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner will take a considered decision thereon without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 to 4 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1121
Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - availability of benefit of notification dated 13-10-2017 at the relevant point of time - HELD THAT:- Issue notice to the petitioner returnable on 6-12-2019.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1120
Bail Application - offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of CGST Act - The applicant is arrested on 21.07.2019 and almost 55 days are over and complaint is yet not filed by respondent no. 2 against the present applicant. - HELD THAT:- Considering the offence as alleged in the FIR and also considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR, this is opined to be a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The application is allowed subject to conditions and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1119
Non remittence of TDS in time - penal action initiated by the Income Tax Department against the petitioners - criminal proceedings - HELD THAT:- The petitioners Company M/s.Vasan Health Care Private Limited has not remitted the TDS in time. It has partially remitted with interest but still remittence of TDS is due. Mere representation to defer action will not and cannot stop the authorities proceeding in accordance to law. The interim relief granted to the petitioners is to operate the bank account with minimum balance of ₹ 1.62 Crores by itself an indication that the petitioners have not cleared the entire due. Even otherwise, the interim order of the Court dated 08.01.2016, goes to show that only after the coercive measure of freezing the petitioners account, the Income Tax Department were able to recover about ₹ 8 Crores. While so, the petitioners, who have failed to pay TDS in time and what little paid was paid with delay and interest cannot stale the prosecution on frivolous and flimsy ground.
In this case, the petitioners though deducted tax at source, not paid the same within the time prescribed. This action of initiating criminal prosecution after obtaining sanction from the appropriate authority cannot be termed as violative of principles of natural justice.
Refer the case of Madhumilan Syntex Ltd [2007 (3) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Directors of the Company approached the Court seeking quash of the criminal prosecution on the ground that the tax deducted at source was paid with interest and there was reasonable cause of the belated payment, the Honourable Supreme Court after extracting the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act once a statute requires to pay tax and stipulates period within which such payment is to be made, the payment must be made within that period. If the payment is not made within that period, there is default and an appropriate action can be taken under the Act. Interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel would make the provision relating to prosecution nugatory.'
Following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhumilan Syntex case [supra], these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1118
Seizure of money - release the money in interim custody - HELD THAT:- An application filed by the appellant seeking interim custody of the money was already declined and a revision petition filed against the said order is pending disposal before the Sessions Court. Evidently, now the Income Tax Department is in seisen of the matter and had already initiated 'centralization proceedings'. They are now keeping custody of the money based on an order passed by the Magistrate's Court.
It is for the appellant to approach the appropriate authority in the Income Tax Department claiming ownership and release of the amount, pending finalization of the proceedings, on adducing proof with respect to its ownership. They can also purse the remedy of revision petition filed before the Sessions Court.
This court, by exercising the powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue any direction with respect to release of the money, at this stage of the matter, unless the matter is considered by the appropriate authority. As found by the learned Single Judge, interference by this court may be warranted only in a proper proceedings wherein the appellant challenges any order which may be passed by the authority or court concerned. We do not think that it is proper to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 226 to issue any direction with respect to release of the money, unless a proper adjudication is made by the authority or court concerned.
Hence we find no illegality, error or impropriety in the judgment of the Single Judge, impugned herein. Consequently, the above writ appeal deserve no merit and the same is hereby dismissed, reserving liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate authority/court seeking appropriate reliefs.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1117
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons for re-opening the assessment - deduction u/s 80JJAA as claimed by the petitioner - change of opinion or not? - HELD THAT:- Whether the notice that has been issued to the petitioner was on account of change of opinion or on account of failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material required for the assessment is to be determined by the Assessing Officer while passing order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the facts of the case, though the petitioner had furnished certain details at the time of re-assessment, the question still remains to be answered is whether there was full and true disclosure by the petitioner as is contemplated under proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In this case, mere filing to the annexure by the petitioner in response to notice during scrutiny assessment by itself may or may not have been sufficient to come to the conclusion that there was full and true disclosure by the petitioner if the information furnished was neither complete nor true.
It is therefore best left open for the petitioner to demonstrate before the 1st respondent that the details furnished by the petitioner vide letter dated 03.03.2016 in annexure 2 meets the requirements of full and true disclosure for the Assessing Officer to drop the proceedings in terms of 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In case there is a change of opinion, the 1st respondent cannot proceed in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT]
In case indeed there is a mere change in opinion, the 1st respondent will be obliged to drop the proceeding. However, to ascertain whether is a mere change of opinion or not first it has to be established that the there was true and full disclosure by the petitioner. This can be demonstrated by the petitioner only before the 2nd respondent and not in a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution of India as scope of judicial review is limited and it is not possible to conduct roving enquiry on facts.
Under these circumstances, do not find any merits in quashing the impugned notice dated 13.03.2017 and the communication dated 24.11.2017 overruling the objection of the petitioner.
Relegate the petitioner to participate in the proceedings before the 1st respondent by filing appropriate representations/objections within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 1st respondent is obliged to pass orders on merits in accordance with law. It is made clear that in case the circumstance do not justify invocation of proviso to Section 147, the 1st respondent shall drop the proceedings. At the same time, while passing orders under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the 1st respondent can pass assessment order as per Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1116
Unexplained cash purchase - information received from the Customs Authorities - notice was issued for enhancement of income and served on the AR asking the assessee to give his explanation within 15 days, however, till date the assessee neither submitted the explanation nor requested for more time to submit the explanation - main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent, without applying his mind independently, has issued the impugned notice relying on the report of the Assessment Officer, which is arbitrary and illegal and on this score alone, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions now made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court permits the petitioner to submit the necessary objections to the second respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders independently applying his mind, on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1115
Correct head of income - interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - part take the character of the compensation and would fall under the head “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources” - HELD THAT:- The scheme with regard to chargeability of interest received on compensation and enhanced compensation has undergone a sea change with the insertion of Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the 1961 Act. Section 56 deals with income from other sources and a specific provision has been inserted by way of sub-section 2(viii), whereby the interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation, as referred to in clause (b) to Section 145A has been included under the head 'Income from other sources'. In clause (iv) to Section 57, deduction of fifty per cent is provided on interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation.
In view of the amendments, the decision of Apex Court in Ghanshyam's case [2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] does not come to the rescue of the petitioner to claim that interest received under Section 28 of the 1894 Act is to be treated as compensation and to be dealt with under “Capital gains”. The fact that there is no amendment carried out under Section 10(37) of the 1961 Act will not change the position. Section 10 deals with deductions and subsection (37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head “Capital gains”. The argument raised is not well founded.
Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause 46.1. The said clause talks about undue hardship being caused as arrears of interest being taxable on accrual basis. Clause 46.2 states that Section 145A is amended to overcome the difficulty, by deeming the income for the year in which it is received. Clause 46.3 has been ignored in which Section 56(2)(viii) is dealt with that interest on compensation or on enhanced compensation referred to in clause (b) of Section 145A shall be assessed as “income from other sources”.
It is held that the interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is to be treated as “income from other sources” and not under the head “Capital gains”.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1114
Exemption u/s 11 - registration u/sec. 12AA denied - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - CIT(E) has observed that the trust in its MoA has been mentioned that on dissolution, the land will be given back to the heirs of the donors, which is not as per law - HELD THAT:- Assessee-society is running an old age home in 03 acres of land situated in Vizianagaram. Assessee is providing paying guest accommodation for the needy. Paying guest accommodation is said to be provided to those who are admitted by their kids or nearby relatives. The expenditure for running the organization is from interest income earned on bank deposits held by it. The deposits held by the organization are said to be out of funds donated by the public.
Enquiries revealed that some donors initially donated each ₹ 1.00 lakh to the “Prema Samajam‟ as one time donation for the benefit of it and the donations so collected were deposited in bank accounts held by it. Some donations are extended by public for “Annadhanam Scheme‟ for benefit of the assessee. Apart from the donations accepted from public, it also receives sponsorships for providing food from public on special occasions i.e. birthdays, marriage days etc. Prema Samajam collects ₹ 3,000/- from public to provide food to the inmates on the day of their choice who want to sponsor food for the inmates of it for arranging food for all the 100 inmates presently housed.
Some Doctors are learnt to be visiting Prema Samajam extending their free service to treat the inmates on fortnightly basis. One more building also sponsored by the Visakha Dairy Trust, Visakhapatnam. After examining the objects and activities carried by the assessee and also report submitted by the ITO (Exemptions), Visakhapatnam which reveals that the assessee is running old age home providing free shelter and food to at least 50 destitutes and also extending services to the poor people and free medical treatment. The source of income of the assessee is donations collected from the public and interest income deposited in the banks.
Assessee is solely existed for the purpose of running society to carry the charitable activities, even assessee is charging some amount from the people who are admitted in the paying guest accommodation and expenses borne by the children or relatives. Ultimately all the funds are used for the benefit of the people who are admitted in the society, no profit making activity is carried out by the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that without there being any doubt, the assessee is running its society in charitable lines and is deserves to be granted registration u/sec. 12A of the Act.
CIT(E) rejected the 12A registration on the ground that clause mentioned in the gift deed is not in accordance with law is concerned; we find that the above reason given by the ld.CIT(E) is not correct in rejecting the 12A registration to the assessee. CIT(E) not at all examined what the assessee‟s activities whether assessee actually carrying charitable activities are not. Without doing so, the ld. CIT(E) picked up an irrelevant clause in the gift deed and rejected 12A, CIT(A) is not correct. We, therefore, granting 12A to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1113
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - additions u/s. 68 and u/s. 69C - AO received investigation report from the Pr. DIT about the assessee having rigged transaction - reason to believe OR reason to suspect - HELD THAT:- It has to be kept in mind that ‘reason to believe’ postulates a foundation based on information and belief based on reason. Even if there is foundation based on information, there still must be reason warrant holding a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped income.
A bare reading of the reasons recorded to reopen reveals that there was non application of mind before reopening the assessment. Based on an information/investigation report, the AO has jumped into the conclusion that the assessee is involved in the activities of penny stock rigging etc. It has to be kept in mind that information from the Investigation Wing(Income-tax Department) can only trigger the reasons to suspect. Then the AO to make some preliminary inquiry and collect some material which would suggest the escapement of income.
AO based only on investigation report has recorded his satisfaction without conducting preliminary inquiry, which is nothing but the borrowed satisfaction from the report of Investigation Wing. The condition precedent to reopen an assessment that is ‘reason to believe’ should be that of the AO not that of the investigation wing, so in the absence of the condition precedent to reopen, the AO lacks jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Even though the department was aware as on 09 Jan. 2014 itself about the demise of late Sushila Choudhari, the notice issued u/s. 148 in the name of deceased person is also bad in law. So I find that reason recorded by AO does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement as per the settled law on the subject and therefore AO lacks jurisdiction to reopen and thereafter notice u/s. 148 is bad in law and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and therefore, the same is hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1112
Denial of deduction u/s 80P(2) - assessee is in the Banking business accepts the deposits from the general public being D Class nominal members and also lend the funds - eligibility of nominal members under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/S. KODAVOOR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA [2019 (8) TMI 1269 - ITAT BANGALORE] restore the entire disputed issue to the file of Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh in the light of the decision of chargeability of interest income under the head ‘income from other sources’ and the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar’s Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. Vs. ITO [2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd.[2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
In respect of the claim of Nominal Members included in the definition of Member we find support on our view rely on the decision of Trapaj Vibhageeya Khet Udyog Mal Rupantar Food Processing Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2018 (8) TMI 273 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] and M/S. S-1308 AMMAPET PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. [2019 (1) TMI 116 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] which is covered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the substantive opinion that the nominal members are also eligible for the Benefits of credit society. Accordingly we restore entire disputed issue to the file of Assessing Officer to grant the benefit to the nominal members and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of the case and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1111
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80P - whether the assessee being a co-operative society is eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act with respect to the income earned by the assessee on bank interest on fixed deposit receipts and savings bank accounts? - HELD THAT:- The above issue is covered by the decision in case of Totgar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO [2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been considered and held that assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act on the bank interest received on fixed deposit receipts and savings bank accounts. Such interest income falls in the category of "Other income" which has been rightly taxed by the Department under section 56 - Decided against assessee.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1110
Penalty imposed u/s 221(1) r.w.s. 140A(3) - non-payment of self-assessment tax - Return of Income as filed u/s 139(1) itself was declared an invalid Return - scope of Sec.140A(3) - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue in dispute in the present appeal before us is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumabi in the case of Heddle Knowledge Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2018 (3) TMI 208 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that the fact that the amended Sec. 140A(3) w.e.f. 01.04.1989 does not envisage any penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the impugned penalty by making recourse to Sec. 221(1) of the Act.
Sec. 221 of the Act remains unchanged, both during the pre and post amended Sec. 140A(3) of the Act and even in the pre-amended situation, penalty u/s 221 of the Act was not attracted for default in payment of self-assessment tax, which was expressly covered in pre 01.04.1989 prevailing Sec. 140A(3). Thus, without there being any requisite corresponding amendment to Sec. 221 of the Act in consonance with the amendments carried out in Sec. 140A(3) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer erred in levying the impugned penalty. Thus, on this aspect, we hereby set-aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed u/s 140A(3) r.w.s. 221(1) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2020 (3) TMI 1109
Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - interest free advances to its sister concern - diversion of funds - HELD THAT:- Assessee has borrowed interest bearing funds and claimed the corresponding interest as expenditure. It advanced interest free loan to subsidiary concern but has not established the commercial expediency on the transaction with its sister concern. The assessee has not placed any material even before us to prove that the impugned transaction was undertaken on commercial consideration.
Therefore,we uphold the disallowance made by the A.O. and sustained by the learned CIT(A) subject to verification as directed by the learned CIT(A). Therefore,the corresponding grounds of the assessee on this issue fail.
Addition u/s 40A(3) - Proof of single payment,which is exceeding ₹ 20,000/- - HELD THAT:- Expenditure incurred under the head “Pooja expenses”, gift purchases for Ayudha pooja,cash purchases,Sivaranjini Contractor”,could be allowed as business expenditure,towards which incurring of cash expenditure could be justified. Therefore,we direct the A.O. to allow these expenses.
With regard to payments made under the following heads,Rajshree Associates-labour contractors,Emmkay Associates-labour contractors,Pachyappan-Masonary,Sivaranjini Contractor,Shanugam-centring,since the assessee is not able to establish that these payments did not attract the provisions of section 40A(3) we are of the view that disallowances made by the A.O. and as sustained by the learned CIT(A) under this heads do not require any disturbances and hence,such disallowances are confirmed. Thus,the corresponding grounds are treated as partly allowed on this issue.
Donations disallowance u/s 37 - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has incurred the impugned expenses wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and hence,the disallowance made by the A.O is not warranted. Therefore,we direct the A.O to allow the expenses claimed by the assessee under Section 37 of the Act. Corresponding grounds of the assessee are allowed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1108
Benami transactions - Pleadings of the respondents is that the money was provided by the father - HELD THAT:- From para 2 of the plaint, it is clear that the respondents/plaintiffs have merely mentioned that the money was provided by the father of the respondent no.1, i.e. Late Govind Singh Tomar. It is nowhere mentioned by the plaintiffs that Govind Singh Tomar had entered into an agreement to purchase the property in the name of plaintiff no.1. Under these circumstances, at the most it can be said that Late Govind Singh Tomar had provided the money to respondent no.1 for entering into an agreement to sell.
In the present case also the pleadings of the respondents is that the money was provided by the father. Thus, it is held that merely because the respondent no.1 had taken financial help from his father for making the sale consideration, it would not make the agreement to sell a Benami transaction, so as to push it into the forbidden area of the provisions envisaged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1107
Benami Transactions - Whether the sale consideration was paid by the respondent alone? - respondent was father-in-law of the applicant. Applicant and son of the respondent namely Neeraj Kumar were husband and wife. Due to some dispute between them, decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the applicant. Before passing of the decree of divorce a sale deed was executed in favour of the applicant and respondent by which they purchased suit property - HELD THAT:- Since issue whether the property in dispute was purchased as benami transactions and at the time of said purchase what was intention of buyers actual or name lender, can be decided only after considering merits of respective claims of parties on the basis of their evidence. Hence only on basis of Section 4 of Act, entire suit cannot be allowed to fall at preliminary stage. [See also Mridula Singh vs. Brahmdeo Pd. Singh [2005 (9) TMI 684 - PATNA HIGH COURT]
Whether the provisions of Section 4(3)(a) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition Act), 1988 would be applicable to daughter-in-law, since she is not coparcener in Hindu undivided family? - As observed that while considering exemption under Section 4 in respect of Benami Transactions, the existence of fiduciary capacity has to be determined in circumstances of individual cases. In the aforesaid case, it has also been observed that since the daughter-in-law was not holding the property in fiduciary capacity, the prohibition enshrined under Section 4 would apply and the suit for possession at the instance of daughter-in-law would be maintainable.
In juxtaposition with the law laid down in the case of Mridula Singh (Supra), there cannot be any iota of doubt that issue regarding maintainability of the counter claim can be well adjudicated by the trial Court by framing an issue on the basis of the evidence led by the parties in respect of Benami Transactions.
Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
............
|
9911796707
