Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

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