Petitioner challenged an assessment order under the Finance Act, 1994 for AY 2012-13 and the consequent demand without filing any appeal. The court noted the subsequent show-cause notice related to different periods (2013-14 to 2017-18) and found no reason to entertain the writ petition, dismissing it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8946 of 2022
======================================================
Md. Atiur Rahman Son of Md. Suleman Resident of Tatarpur Road Tatarpur, Police Station- Tatarpur, District- Bhagalpur Sole proprietor of M/S AL RAHMAN TELE DISTRIBUTOR.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG Mr.Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC. CGST & CX Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11 Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Singh, JC to ASG Mr. Devansh Shankar Singh, JC to ASG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 06-03-2024
The petitioner has by the above writ petition challenged Annexures-6 and 7. Annexure-6 is an order passed under the Finance Act, 1994, for the assessment year 2012-13. Annexure-7 is a demand raised, based on Annexure-6, which is dated 27.01.2021. There is no appeal filed from Annexure-6 order and the demand itself is of Annexure-7, in the year 2022
Patna High Court CWJC No.8946 of 2022 dt.06-03-2024 2/2
itself. The petitioner’s contention is that now a subsequent show-cause notice has been issued as per Annexure-3.
petition.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
aditya/-
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 07.03.2024 |
| Transmission Date |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a Finance Act, 1994 assessment order and demand for AY 2012-13 should be entertained where no statutory appeal was filed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Atiur Rahman
The Union of India
The Commissioner Central G.S.T. and Central Excise Duty, Patna
Assistant Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise Duty, Bhagalpur Division
Superintendent (Adjn) Central Goods and Service Tax Division, Bhagalpur
Superintendent (Technical) CGST and CX Division, Bhagalpur
K. Vinod Chandran
Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
