NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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