Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: hash value in Rathanachalam Chettiar Natarajan vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 27 June, 2022Matching Fragments
12. On the submission made by either side, this Court finds that the petitioner made a forcible submission stating that though initial notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued under Section 148 of the Act, which according to the petitioner, it was received only on 01.04.2021 as it could be seen from his E-mail on at 7.20 a.m. only. All these factors are factual in nature. Further it is submited by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the cut off date and time to upload the same is upto 23.59 hours, however, it might not have been uploaded due to various reasons like jaming or system hash value etc. In view of the petitioner's contention that the notice dated 31.03.2022, received only on 01.04.2022, cannot be accepted, for which records have to be summoned. This process can be taken only on appeal proceedings and not in the writ proceedings. Thereafter, the other contention of the petitioner can be considered. Finding that the contentions are factual, the Apex Court has time and again in factual matters deprecated interference of this Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.13269of 2022