TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest in terms of the notification dated 26.06.2006. In our considered view, recording of final conclusion for acceptance of the explanation of the respondent was not called for or rather can be said to be exceeding the jurisdiction inasmuch as observed by us hereinabove while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the lower authority and after having interfered in the decision making process, the matter was required to be remanded keeping the rest of the aspects open, of course, by excluding the aspects which are already considered by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, such an exercise of jurisdiction of accepting the explanation of the assessee is at par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23 of the impugned order. The Chief Commissioner shall examine the matter and pass appropriate order preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order of this Court after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent-assessee. - WRIT APPEAL NO. 4938/2015 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 1-3-2017 - MR. JAYANT PATEL AND MR. N.K. SUDHINDRARAO JJ. APPELLANTS: (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENT: (BY SRI K.P. KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE A/W MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE ORDER JAYANT PATEL J., Admit. 2. Mr. K.P. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent waives notice of admission. 3. With the consent of learned Advocates ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to consider the matter afresh and in accordance with law. 7. On 13.03.2015 the Chief Commissioner again considered the matter and passed an order, whereby he rejected the application for waiver under Section 2 34C of the Act, having found that the explanation is not acceptable. The respondent once again approached to this Court by preferring writ petition challenging the order of rejection of the waiver. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order found that the consideration of the case by the Chief Commissioner was not proper and further held that the explanation given by the assessee was acceptable and also remanded the matter. Under the circumstances the present appeal before this Court. 8. We have heard Mr. K.V. Aravind, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court in the earlier litigation are available. It is with this purpose the matter is remanded or relegated to the authority once again for consideration of the case in accordance with law. 11. The examination of the facts of the present case shows that the observations made by the learned Single Judge upto paragraph 23 of the impugned order cannot be faulted with because the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order has found that reading of paragraph-2(b) of the notification in a restricted manner would be too myopic and he further observed that the discretion is invested with the Chief Commissioner to exercise judiciously, based on the facts and circumstances and not circumscribed by any fetters. Possibly what th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f paragraph 2(b) of the notification dated 26.06.2006, Annexure-B. Compliance within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid shows that the learned Single Judge made a final observation that the assessee s explanation is acceptable calling for exercise of discretion under pargraph-2(b) of the notification dated 26.06.2006. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter to the Chief Commissioner for consideration of the case for extent of waiver of interest in terms of the notification dated 26.06.2006. In our considered view, recording of final conclusion for acceptance of the explanation of the respondent was not called for or rather can be said to be exceeding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notification dated 26.06.2006 and the other aspects so observed in the impugned order in paragraph-24 would also not be required. 15. In view of the above, the observations and the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order at paragraph-24 are set aside and modified to the extent that the matter shall be reconsidered afresh by the Chief Commissioner for waiver of interest charged under Section 234C of the Act in terms of the notification dated 26.06.2006, in light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge upto paragraph-23 of the impugned order. The Chief Commissioner shall examine the matter and pass appropriate order preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
