Kedia Colonizers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Kedia Colonizers Ltd. vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Dec 17, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/762254

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/762254
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Ashok Parihar, J.
Decided On: Dec 17, 1999
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6541 of 1999
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation
Acts & sections: Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 142, 143 and 246; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kedia Colonizers Ltd.

Advocate A. Kasliwal, Adv.

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 142, 143 and 246; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: [2000]245ITR675(Raj)

Excerpt

- ashok parihar, j.1. the petitioner has challenged the notice dated december 1, 1999, issued under section 142(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, by which the petitioner has been asked to file his reply/explanation with supporting' evidence. the notice has been challenged mainly on the ground that the income-tax appellate tribunal had already deleted most of the amounts referred to in the notice under challenge and further that the appeal against the order of the income-tax appellate tribunal filed by the revenue is still pending before the appellate tribunal (sic). some malafides have also been alleged against the assessing' authority who has issued the notice.2. after hearing counsel for the petitioner, i have carefully gone through the entire material on record and also the provisions of the act of 1961.3. since only a notice has been issued and the petitioner has been asked to file his reply/explanation, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court under its writ jurisdiction in the present matter, more so, when after issuing notice under section 142, an assessment is to be made under section 143. the petitioner has a proper remedy of filing an appeal before the competent authorities under section 246 of the act of 1961. since adequate remedy has already been provided under the act of 1961, no interference is called for by this court in such matters under writ jurisdiction.4. accordingly, i find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily.

Full Judgment

Ashok Parihar, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated December 1, 1999, issued under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by which the petitioner has been asked to file his reply/explanation with supporting' evidence. The notice has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had already deleted most of the amounts referred to in the notice under challenge and further that the appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal filed by the Revenue is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal (sic). Some malafides have also been alleged against the assessing' authority who has issued the notice.

2. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and also the provisions of the Act of 1961.

3. Since only a notice has been issued and the petitioner has been asked to file his reply/explanation, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court under its writ jurisdiction in the present matter, more so, when after issuing notice under Section 142, an assessment is to be made under Section 143. The petitioner has a proper remedy of filing an appeal before the competent authorities under Section 246 of the Act of 1961. Since adequate remedy has already been provided under the Act of 1961, no interference is called for by this court in such matters under writ jurisdiction.

4. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1999 Same Parties Kedia Colonizers Ltd. vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge Ashok Parihar, J. Acts & Sections Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 142, 143 and 246; Constitutio...

Direct Taxation