Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

The Tax Recovery Officer and Ors. v. Bhishma Pithamaha - (High Court of Karnataka) (11 Aug 2015)

Court to not entertain petition under Article 226 if bona fides of Petitioner in doubt

MANU/KA/2107/2015

Direct Taxation

In a case where the Bhishma Pithamaha challenged tax notices issued against another person, the Court held that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained as the Petitioner was a stranger to the notices. Though the Bhishma Pithamaha had claimed that the money in the noticee's account was his own, the Court was unable to find any confirmed right proving the same. The Court reiterated that it has the right to refuse exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 if 'the petitioner has not come with clean hands', and equity is not in favour of the petitioner.

Relevant : Article 226 Constitution of India, 1950 Act

Tags : TAX   ARTICLE 226   NOTICE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved