Case Law Details
Case Name : Vijay Prakash Agrawal And Others Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) And Another (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Tax No. 1357 of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 17/04/2013
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Allahabad High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Having regard to the facts of the case, it is but evident that the respondents have failed to discharge their legal obligation in not refunding the seized amount immediately or shortly after the completion of the assessment proceedings finally at least. We also do not appreciate the argument of the respondent c
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment
Subscribe to Our Daily Newsletter
Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
A correction-
In the 7th line from top, to be read:
“…acting in utter disregard or violation of, or failing to act…
Should the ongoing battle (turned war!) of wits be perceived insightfully and analysed incisively, it will be realised that the instant court case, so also several related others recently reported/narrated (one of them being – “HC issued guidelines to end TDS credit & refund adjustment harassment of Assessee by CPU”) go to succinctly bear out a basic fallacy; in that,by any logic or sound reasoning,to project it as case (s) of ‘harassment’ is too mild a description to qualify as a fitting reprimand or reproach in the eyes of even common law and in the context of principles of mnatural justice. For,thse are clearly instances, where a ‘public servant’, actng or failing to act strictly according to the dictats (mandates) of the law, so also the repeated judicial pronouncements, departmental directives and binding instructions,so on.To be precise,if strictly viewed, it is, indisputably, tantamount to disobedoience or insubordination of the gravest kind, by any standard unexpected of a ‘public servant’; so grave that he cannot be regarded to qualify and avail of the otherwise possible defence namely,-as anything done ‘in good faith’ or ‘intended to be done under this Act’, -as envisaged by the law (in particular, in section 293 of the Act). If that be the rght, nay righteous, premise, then all the lawful consequences must follow.
Key Note: Deliberately left open to be commented/elaborated, after a devoted study and intellligent deliberation, by right minded experts at large; also to sincerely take on, for the common good,the confronting problems with an impartial but multidimentioal approach, have a free and frank discussion with the people in governance, to the end of a lasting solution.
For a few thoughts on the facets hinted at above, one may refer the published article- (2008) 169 Taxmann (journal) 14-21 (para 2.1); which may be of help for having a grass root grip of the whole matter.