Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed  ||  Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict  ||  Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award  ||  Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9  ||  Tripura HC: Tax Authorities Cannot Revive Repealed VAT Powers or Retain Deposits Without Law  ||  J&K&L HC: Obtaining a Passport is a Constitutional Right; Citizens Need Not Prove Travel Necessity  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Report in Non-Cognizable Offence is a Complaint; Accused Must Be Heard First  ||  Kerala HC: Hospitals Must Display Rates and Cannot Deny Emergency Care For Lack of Advance Payment  ||  Orissa HC: Convict’s Refusal to Appeal Through Legal Aid Must be Recorded in Writing  ||  SC Halts Deer Translocation From Delhi’s AN Jha Park And Orders a Probe into DDA Negligence    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved