TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rank was challenged reported in [2015 (2) TMI 1162 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], the Department had withdrawn the said notice, the impugned notices, Annexures P-3, P-5 and P-6, issued by respondent No.2 are set aside and liberty is granted to the State to issue fresh notice under Section 40(2) of the Act in accordance with law without prejudice to the rights of the parties. - Decided in favour of petitioner - CWP No. 9415 of 1990 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. MR. RAMENDRA JAIN. JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Lalit Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealed its turnover qua the goods amounting to ` 2,73,14,705.52 and had furnished false returns for the period from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1985. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The primary challenge in this writ petition is to the initiation of revisional proceedings by issuing notice under Section 40(2) of the Act by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Inspection)-cum-revisional authority, Hisar, on the ground that the assessment in the present case was framed by the Assessing Officer of equal rank, namely, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Hisar and the revisional power has also been exercised by officer of same and equal rank. 5. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.C. Textiles Ltd., Pandupindara, Jind v. State of Haryana, (2002) 19 PHT 525 (STT IV. M/s Intertia Industries Ltd., Rewari v. State of Haryana, (2003) 21 PHT 442 (STT Hr). V. M/s Ram Partap Bansal and Co. P. Ltd., Tohana v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 PHT 530 (STT Hr). We accordingly answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and hold that the revision by officer of the same rank was not permissible. 6. Again in the case of the petitioner itself, this Court vide order dated 5.2.2015 in CWP No. 9683 of 1990, considering identical issue wherein notice issued under Section 40(2) of the Act for revising the assessment order by the officer of same rank was challenged, the Department had wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
