%20in%20the...urts%20of%20Madhya%20Pradesh%20Rules,%202020.jpg)
Jabalpur: MP High Court has published the E Filing rules in the name of Registrar General on 2nd Dec 2020 is only a draft. The Rule is draft as it is unsigned. As per MP High Court order it is body without soul .
https://mphc.gov.in/PDF/web_pdf/RR/The%20Electronic%20Filing%20(E-Filing)%20in%20the%20Subordinate%20Courts%20of%20Madhya%20Pradesh%20Rules,%202020.pdf
In B. K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal), the question for consideration was
whether the absence of the signature of the ITO on the notice under Section 34 of
the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake.
Dealing with this question, Datta J. Observed as follows (p. 119):
"In
the present case, there was more than a mere irregularity or a clerical
mistake, for, in my view, a notice without the signature lacks an essential
and/or an integral.and/or an inseparable vital part or requirement of a notice
under Section 34, a notice the terms of which are a
condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax
Officer. "It is notice with a body but without a soul. Hence, it is an
invalid notice and consequently, equivalent to no notice." Mp high court https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126409/
Punjab-Haryana High
Court
Misra Singh vs State Of
Punjab And Others on 10 January, 2013
The
petitioner was an elected Sarpanch. He was removed from his office by an
unsigned order, Annexure P-5. It is the significant question of law, as
posed above.
Further,
after giving anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the parties and in view of the peculiar fact situation of
the present case, it is unhesitatingly held that impugned order (Annexure P-5),
was no order in the eyes of law because admittedly, it was not signed by the
competent authority.
Notice without signature affixed on it is invalid
Read more at: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/notice-signature-affixed-invalid.html
Comments
Post a Comment