9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n W.P.(C) Nos.8217, 9940, 9952, 9964, 11640, 17972, 19288, 19474, 20073, 20533, 20611, 20947, 21572, 21573, 31494, 31541, 23880 & 26752 of 2022), Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, Advocate (In W.P.(C) Nos.9941, 10892, 11075, 14550, 14552, 14554, 16836 & 22817 of 2022), Mr. Basudev Panda, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bijay Panda, Advocate, (In W.P.(C) Nos.10693, 10697, 10699 & 14927 of 2022), Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, Advocate (In W.P.(C) Nos.11065 and 12886 of 2022), Mr. Sunil Mishra, Advocate (In W.P.(C) No.12038 of 2022) and Mr. S. S. Padhy, Advocate (In W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2022) For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Tusar Kanti Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department (In W.P.(C) No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial order under Section 148-A(1)(d) of the Act by holding that the Petitioners/Assessees in those cases would have a full opportunity of urging all the grounds of challenge at the stage of challenging the consequential order in the reassessment proceedings consequent upon the notice under Section 148 of Act. 4. Meanwhile, a DB of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in an order dated 2nd June, 2022 in CWP No.10219 of 2022 (Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) held likewise. In other words, it was held that there was no warrant for interference by the Court at the stage where an order had been passed under Section 148- A(1)(d) of the Act and that all the grounds of challenge to such order could be urged at the stage of challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court of Punjab and Haryana itself has subsequently in Kulwant Singh v. Union of India issued notice in a writ petition which raised a similar challenge as in the present petitions before this Court. 7. On the side of the Petitioners, it was urged that the aforementioned order dated 2nd September, 2022 of the Supreme Court of India in Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) cannot constitute a precedent and is, therefore, not binding on this Court. In support of such submission, reliance was placed on a large number of judgments including Malook Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0795/2021, Tikaram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 10 SCC 689, Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd (2011) 5 SCC 532 and A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
