ARIHANT BUILDERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) IN this appeal the appellant is questioning the validity and correctness of the order 4th Feb., 1999, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2455 of 1998. The learned Single Judge by the order under appeal dismissed the writ petition taking note of the order made earlier in Writ Petition No. 4472 filed by the very appellant.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The principle ground to challenge the notice in the earlier writ petition was that the authorities did not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment merely on the basis of the report of the Valuer. Even in the present writ petition before us, the thrust of the argument of the learned counsel is the same, though the subsequent order rejecting the objections is challenged in the writ petition. The earlier writ petition was also filed principally on the ground that the assessment could not be reopened merely on the basis of the report of the Valuer of the Department and as such the proceedings could not be continued pursuance to the notice issued under S. 148 of the IT Act, 1961; that contention was not accepted by the learned Judge and, on the other hand, the respondent No. 2 was directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the direction given in the earlier writ petition was only to deal with the objection as to the jurisdiction cannot be accepted from the plain reading of the order. After passing of the order in the earlier writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4472 of 1997, the appellant raised objections and those objections were rejected by the order dt. 22nd May, 1998 and the main case is still pending before the respondent No. 2. Now again, the appellant is contending that the notice for reopening the assessment could not be issued merely on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuer. If that contention was to be accepted in the earlier writ petition, the learned Judge would have quashed the notice itself and dropped further proceedings. That having not been done, it is not possible now to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the order of the second respondent that may be finally passed pursuant to the notice issued to reopen the assessment, if it becomes necessary, on all the grounds that are available including the grounds raised in the present writ petition. Thus, we find no good or valid ground to admit this appeal. Hence, this appeal is rejected.