The Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that prescribed appellate remedies under the Finance Act, 1994 had not been exhausted and that factual questions precluded direct judicial review.
Writ petition dismissed in limine without prejudice to the appellate remedy.
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.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
WRIT PETITION No.39327 OF 2018
ORDER (ORAL): (Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan)
The order impugned in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order confirming demand in terms of the Finance Act, 1994; hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. As noted even on the face of the impugned order, an appeal is available to the writ petitioner under Section 86 (1) of the Act.
HCJ & SVB, J W.P.No.39327 of 2018
2
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.
______________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ
_____________ S.V. BHATT, J
November 2, 2018 MRR
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Writ Petitioner
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
S.V. BHATT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
