Wpt/6431/2008 Of Dr. Bhisham Lal Sharma v. Income Tax Officer And Another
High Court
19 Nov 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Wpt/6431/2008 Of Dr. Bhisham Lal Sharma v. Income Tax Officer And Another
Date of order
19 Nov 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wpt/6431/2008 Of Dr. Bhisham Lal Sharma v. Income Tax Officer And Another, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In View of the foregoing, Shri Shanna learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner[seeks]permission of this Court to withdraw this petitioniwithliberty to take recourse to alternative statutory remedy of appeal that maybe available to the petitioner under the provisions of law.In View of the foregoin...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURN
WRIT PETITION §T§
No. 6431 of2008
WRIT>PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIASB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. A‘ o o'
‘ o o'
Present:
Shri Virendra Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the respondents.
ORAL ORDER(Passed[on][ 19m ]day of Novembeg 2008)
ShriAmjtChoudhary,learnedcounselappearingfortherespondentssubmits that this writ petition is not maintainable as under the provisions ofsection 346 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as statutory appeal is providediThereis effective, efficacious and speedy remedy against the impugnedorder dated 30.10.2008 (Amexure P/l) available to the petitioner.ShriChoudhary further submits that the recovery of the amount pursuant to theorder dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure P/I) shall not be madetill thefirsthearing before the appellate authority.submits that this writ petition is not maintainable as under the provisions ofsection 346 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as statutory appeal is providediThereis effective, efficacious and speedy remedy against the impugnedorder dated 30.10.2008 (Amexure P/l) available to the petitioner.ShriChoudhary further submits that the recovery of the amount pursuant to theorder dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure P/I) shall not be madetill thefirsthearing before the appellate authority.
In View of the foregoing, Shri Shanna learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner[seeks]permission of this Court to withdraw this petitioniwithliberty to take recourse to alternative statutory remedy of appeal that maybe available to the petitioner under the provisions of law.In View of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn Withitheabove stated liberty. No order asto costs.Consequently, I.A. No. 1, for interim stay, also stands dismissed.
On the request of Shri Shanna, certified copy ofthe order dated 30. 10.2008(AnnexureP/l)filedwiththepetition[may]bereturnedbacktotheWpetitioner[after][ retaining]a copy ofthe same.\Sd/_}Satish K. AgnihotriJudge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue