Central Excise Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar

9 SCC 31Reported decision2008#2881 most cited

What is Central Excise Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar authority for?

Where the initiation of assessment proceedings is valid, but the completion is irregular, the assessment order may be considered irregular but not invalid, as the intervening irregularity can be curable. Technicalities should not obstruct justice.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Gauhati · Managing Director · ECIL v. B. Karunakar · Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja · assessment irregularity · curable defect · technicality over justice

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 153DSection 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 132Section 158BGSection 151

Issues it is cited on

section 136section 43(3)section 193section 196section 37bsection 255(4)section 114(e)section 158bgaudi alteram partemsection 271aab(1a)section 151(2)section 144ba

Judgments citing Central Excise Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…nted. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance…