Yash Kumar Goyal v. UOI and others
[Citation -2014-LL-1107-39]

Citation 2014-LL-1107-39
Appellant Name Yash Kumar Goyal
Respondent Name UOI and others
Court HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 07/11/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags period of limitation • review petition
Bot Summary: The petitioner has filed this review petition for review of the order dated 25th September, 2014. The first contention of the petitioner is that in the order, it is mentioned as W.P. No. 5529/2014 the correct number of the writ petition is 5529/2010. It is directed that where in the order dated 25th September, 2014 passed in W.P. No. 5492/2010, it is mentioned W.P. No. 5529/2014, it be read as W.P. No. 5529/2010. There is no such prayer in the original writ petition. The petitioner has already submitted a representation to the authorities to the effect that the initiation of assessment proceedings was beyond the period of limitation. The 2 R.P. No. 374/2014 notice was bad in law and the same point has been decided by this Court in W.P. No. 5529/2010 and the order is binding on the department, if it has not been modified by the superior court, department has to follow the order in this case also. With the aforesaid observations, the review petition is disposed of.


1 R.P. No. 374/2014 Yash Kumar Goyal Vs. UOI and others 07.11.2014 Shri Pawan Dwivedi, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Deepesh Bhadoriya, Advocate for respondents. Heard. petitioner has filed this review petition for review of order dated 25th September, 2014. first contention of petitioner is that in order, it is mentioned as W.P. No. 5529/2014, however, correct number of writ petition is 5529/2010. Copy of writ petition has also been filed. Hence, contention is true. Consequently, it is directed that where in order dated 25th September, 2014 passed in W.P. No. 5492/2010, it is mentioned W.P. No. 5529/2014, it be read as W.P. No. 5529/2010. It is further submitted by counsel that in present writ petition, notice for assessment of proceeding was issued. However, this was not brought on record. It is further submitted that assessment proceedings were beyond period of limitation, hence, proceedings could not be initiated and notice was bad in law. There is no such prayer in original writ petition. petitioner has already submitted representation to authorities to effect that initiation of assessment proceedings was beyond period of limitation. Hence, 2 R.P. No. 374/2014 notice was bad in law and same point has been decided by this Court in W.P. No. 5529/2010 (Smt. Preeti Goyal Vs. Union of India and others) and order is binding on department, if it has not been modified by superior court, department has to follow order in this case also. With aforesaid observations, review petition is disposed of. (S.K. Gangele) (S.K. Palo) Judge Judge Abhi Yash Kumar Goyal v. UOI and other
Report Error