S. 148 Reopening based on re-appreciation of same material on record not valid

0 Comments

1. adv. dr.g.balakrishnan says:

   In this connection , i have to draw your attention to Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Edn.),xxxiv,366, note(o)… ‘The ultra vires doctrine makes it very clear ,any authority cannot perpetuate any direct interferance with the right of individuals without specific legal authority;and in case of such municipal corporations as owed their ORIGIN to the ROYAL PREROGATIVE, IT was doubtful they could expend money SAVE in circumstances defined by Statute…. again refer CA Cross Principles of Local government Law(5th edn),3 -11 Hart’s introduction to the Law of the Local Government and Administration(9th edn.),chap.12;……;

   Subordinate legislative instruments ,as well as administrative acts and decisions may be ultra vires on substantive as well as procedural grounds!

     Reply

   October 30, 2014 at 11:40 am
2. adv. dr.g.balakrishnan says:

   Right decision indeed.

   it is clearly settled law under Stare decis due to jurisdiction such cases must result in quashing the AO’s bad in law notices at the first instance possible by any appellate authority, when AO makes a jurisdictional bad in law error. these kinds of bad in law error will become normal as AOs seem to be not understanding what is jurisdiction principle in procedural law or substantive law;

   Any such jurisdictional error means it is nothing short of harassment of assesses and such harassment is not expected under doctrines of good governing principle under rule of law by any authority,whatsoever.

   I would expect any public servant must know his duty of properly understanding the application of relative laws as a normal principle. Else such public servants are pain in the neck of government too.

   It is again settled law citizens are sovereign of democratic government, so all Government Executives are titled as PUBLIC SERVANTS, as citizens are like Masters even on MPs, MLAs who form any government.

   Government is no master of citizens in any way.that shd be loud and clear, governance means citizens are to be treated like any good customer to government.

   In tax administration principle government cannot waste public funds in meaningless litigation. If done the government must be equally penalized by honorable courts as custodian of constitution.

   Therefore, honorable courts or tribunals whenever they observe tax man’s notices are bad in law, court should summarily quash such notices that way honorable courts would facilitate unnecessary expenses of assessees at the earliest possible opportunity that would be good service of duty under constitutional tenets as we have a Part VI A on Duties .

   so i believe that would help public servants are careful when issuing any notices,as it is a sensible responsibility of tax officials to several times check their Notices very very carefully.

   Notices of taxman are not some cinema bit notices or some political parties.

   So my submission is custodians onerous responsibility is to ensure least harassment on citizens under any law as such.

   Hence honorable courts need to keep checklists to evaluate petitions of assesses, more importantly, to mnimize arbitrary behavior of public servants.

   that way only House of Lords in 1880 said very correctly on ‘Ultra vires doctrine in ATT. GEN. V GREAT EASTERN RLY (1880) 5 APP. CAS,473,478;

   india was a British colony and not a banana republic.

   British system is the basic principle of administrative law. Britain respected individual tights of citizens.

   Earlier india follows in administrative laws the better, of course the court decisions prevailing then and even today, as UK decisions are indeed very valid event today as far as india is concerned, as we inherited the British system of laws.

     Reply

   October 30, 2014 at 10:46 am