TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act covers the entire provisions of the Act with the said non-abstante clause thereby all other issues or all other mandates under various provisions of the Act stand excluded when rectification proceedings initiated either suo motu or at the instance of any officer of the respondent/revenue or at the instance of an application filed in this regard by the affected party within three months period. In view of the saving of the limitation, since the application for rectification has been filed by the petitioner, the same shall be independently considered notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of the Act. The earlier show cause notices or notices for personal hearing issued to the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has not responded etc., cannot be cited as a reason for rejecting the rectification application as has been done in the impugned order. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside - the matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration. - W.P.No.1847 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2022 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21. However, the petitioner admittedly filed the rectification application only on 03.11.2021. In this regard, even though the limitation period has been extended by the suo motu order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 15.03.2020, which has been extended from time to time, the same would not be made applicable to the petitioner because the extended period was over by 02.10.2021. Therefore, beyond 02.10.2021, the petitioner has no further extended period of limitation even according to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and hence, such being the position, the rectification application admittedly filed on 03.11.2021 cannot be construed as a filing within the limitation period including the extended period of limitation by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and therefore, mainly on that ground, application submitted by the petitioner for rectification under Section 161 of the Act was rejected through the impugned order. 8. Also further reasons stated by the respondent in the order impugned is that, before the order of assessment was made, notices were issued atleast two times. However, none of the notices have been responded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is given to the petitioner, that would not save the limitation for the petitioner as the 90 days would expire on 15.06.2021. 15. However, by further order dated 23.09.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India having taken into account the subsequent development in respect of the continuous Pandemic situation, due to the Covid-19 second wave, has passed the following orders: I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021. II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.'' 16. Therefore, the total extended period of limitation starts from 15.03.2020 and ends on 02.10.2021. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll those notices having been sent to the petitioner, he has not chosen to reply or appear before the respondent, therefore, at this juncture, there is no scope for making any rectification of the alleged mistake or error as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore on that reason also, since the order impugned has been passed, it cannot be merely treated that the impugned order has been passed only on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader would contend that atleast for the second reason, which has been dealt with on merits, the rejection made by the respondents through the impugned order cannot be assailed before this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore on that ground also, the impugned order is to be sustained and the writ petition is to be dismissed, he contended. 23. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have perused the materials placed before this Court. 24. Insofar as the limitation point is concerned, it has been made explicitly clear in the said orders referred to above. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
