TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive any advantage from the said pronouncements. Therefore, the petitions are allowed. The impugned order are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the State to proceed afresh in accordance with law but without prejudice to the rights of the parties.” - Petition disposed of - CWP No. 506 of 2012 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 4-8-2016 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL MR. HARINDER SINGH SIDHU JJ. Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has approached this court impugning the order dated 9.9.2011 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Revisionary Authority, rejecting the revision against the order in appeal dated 31.8.2006 passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des supporting the impugned order relied upon judgment of a Single Bench of Delhi High Court in Labh Singh Atma Singh vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 Delhi 171 and judgment of Apex Court in Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan vs. F.N.Rana and others, AIR 1964 SC 648. 7. In M/s Prakash Pipes Industries Limited's case (supra) to which one of us (Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.) was a member, while considering identical situation, after examining the relevant case law on the point, it was held that the revision by the officer of the same rank was not permissible. It was recorded as under:- 5.The matter is no longer res integra. This Court in Triputi Udyog Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2010) 37 PHT 521 (P H) while dealing with the identical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies 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40(2) of the Act for revising the assessment order by the officer of same rank was challenged, the Department had withdrawn the said notice. However, liberty was granted to the State to issue fresh notice under Section 40(2) of the Act in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
