Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Section 270A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 221 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shabina Abraham & Ors vs Collector Of Central Excise & Customs on 29 July, 2015
[Judgment of the court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN,J.]
"Nothing is certain except death and taxes. Thus spake Benjamin
Franklin in his letter of 13th Nov., 1789 to Jean Baptiste Leroy. To tax the
dead is a contradiction in terms. Tax laws are made by the living to tax the
living. What survives the dead person is what is left behind in the form of
such person's property" [Refer: Shabina Abraham & Ors. vs. Collector of
Central Excise & Customs MANU/SC/0801/2015 : (2015) 10 SCC 770].
Section 292B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
9. Pertinently, it is to be noted that 'an alternative statutory remedy does
not operate as a bar to maintainability of a writ petition in at least three
contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a
violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or notice or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged' [See: Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1].
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
It is also trite law that 'if the Assessing
Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate assessment proceeding, the mere fact
that subsequent orders have been passed, would not render the challenge to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/11
W.A.No.485 of 2022
jurisdiction infructuous' [Refer: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax
Officer, Companies District I Calcutta and Another, (1961) AIR SC 372]. In
the light of the said legal proposition and having regard to the admitted fact
that the assessee died at the time of inception of the assessment itself and the
same was also brought to the knowledge of the department, we are of the
opinion that the assessment order passed by the first respondent against the
dead person, that too without following mandatory procedure as contemplated
under the Act and the consequential proceedings emanated therefrom, cannot
be allowed to be sustained. However, the learned Judge erred in dismissing the
writ petition on the premise that the appellant has exercised the option of
appeal remedy.
1