The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the notice dated 28.03.2017 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and also the order dated 25.09.2017 whereby the objections preferred by the petitioner questioning the issuance of notice dated 28.03.2017 was rejected.
In absence of law prohibiting transfer, no restriction to transfer the land can be directed by respondent No.2 as right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India is not only constitutional or legal right, but it is also human right and a person can be deprived of that right only by authority of law.
Thus, it appears that only on the basis of the valuation report received from the said officer – Assistant Valuation Officer, the assessing authority sought to reopen the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 which is clearly not an information for reopening the assessment proceeding
Court is of the considered opinion that there is no willful suppression of facts to evade tax on the part of the petitioner and it was bona fide on the part of the petitioner, it was not deliberate and in absence of finding relating to mensrea recorded by the Settlement Commission, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 deserves to be quashed.
The Adjudicating Officer under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act of 2006) is required to make an enquiry before imposing penalty over the person charged for violation of Section 26(2) of the FSS Act of 2006.
.The basic finding of the Board of Revenue that educational qualification is required for the post of Kotwar is unsupportable by the Rules and therefore the consequent finding recorded that the petitioner has referred incorrect educational qualification (marks sheet) to support his appointment, is also liable to quashed being perverse to the record.
If the facts of the instant case are examined, it is quite vivid that in the present case, the award was passed by the Facilitation Council on 12-3-2014, the respondent herein filed application for execution of award on 21-8-2014 and thereafter on 19-2- 2015, application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was filed […]
HC held that A female Government servant, who has begotten a child by procedure of surrogacy, is entitled for maternity leave under Rule 38 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010. 1. To become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth […]
This is an application for restoration of WPS No. 1501 of 2015, which was dismissed for want of prosecution for non compliance of the peremptory order passed by this Court on 29.04.2015 directing that if the petitioner fails to pay the process fee, as per rules, the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the Court.
Invoking provisions contained in Section 26(2) of The Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘Act of 1961’) read with Rule 19(2) of The Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules of 1962’), the election petitioner, petitioner herein has preferred this revision calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in M.J.C. No. 114/2015 by which learned District Judge/Election Tribunal has dismissed the election petition instituted by the petitioner herein under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1961 and declined to the election of respondent herein/Vice-President Office of Nagar Panchayat, Bodri District Bilaspur as null & void.
