AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mukundakam Sharma, J.—By this order I proposed to dispose of the review application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 24.5.2000. By the aforesaid order passed on 24.5.2000 this court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner and registered as C.W. 6907/1999 holding that the petitioner has efficacious remedy and Therefore, the writ petition could not be entertained.
It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the observation made by this court in paragraph 6 of the judgment/order to the effect that it was an admitted position that an appeal could be preferred against the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Authority, should be cancelled as no concession was made by the petitioner that an appeal u/s 169 was proper remedy against the rectification order. Although in the application several contentions are raised, the counsel appearing for the petitioner restricted his arguments only to the aforesaid extent and contended that since the petitioner did not make any concession that an appeal u/s 169 was proper remedy against the rectification order the expression ''admitted position'' used by this court in said paragraph 6 of the judgment should be expunged.
I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the aforesaid issue. It was submitted by her that the aforesaid concession was rightly recorded by the court as the petitioner had conceded during the course of arguments that appeal u/s 169 of the DMC Act was adequate remedy.
This Court recorded the observation in the light of the submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties and Therefore, it cannot be said that a contrary submission was made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the writ petition. The said order was passed as far back as 24.5.2000. If the aforesaid observation was incorrect the petitioner in the natural course would have filed a review application immediately after the pronouncement of the order pointing out the alleged anomaly and would not have waited for a long time for coming up with an application which was filed long after the aforesaid order was passed. The aforesaid observations in paragraph 6 are the natural outcome and result of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties. In this connection reference may also be made to the averments made in the writ petition wherein the petitioner only states that the remedy of appeal u/s 169 of the DMC Act is not an adequate and efficacious remedy for the petitioner. It is not stated in the said petition specifically that no appeal is provided for as against a rectification order although the petitioner has dealt with the aspect of filing of an appeal at length in the writ petition.
Even otherwise in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this court in Castrol India Ltd. v. General Manager, Northern Railways and Anr. ; LPA 175/2000 disposed of on 17.11.2000, the aforesaid issue is no longer rest integra. By the aforesaid judgment it was held by the Full Bench of this court that the terms ''levy'' and ''assessment'' as used in Section 169 have wide connotation and meaning and that they comprehend the whole proceedings for ascertaining and imposing liability seeking for rectification is a part of the aforesaid process and Therefore, an appeal would lie as against such an order in terms of Section 169 of the DMC Act.
In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this application an the same stands rejected.