HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6277/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01029680201927 March 2019Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted that the respondent-Revenue had produced a communication dated 26.03.2019, addressed to the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, withdrawing the attachment notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This communication was taken on record. In light of this development, both learned counsel for the parties submitted that the present petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the petition be disposed of as such. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original challenge to the notice and order, as the issue became moot due to the withdrawal of the notice. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Haryana State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petition challenged a notice dated 27.02.2019 issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 19.02.2019 rejecting the petitioner's stay application. The respondent was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notice and order, followed by the filing of the writ petition. The revenue was represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.02.2019 issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 19.02.2019 rejecting the stay application are liable to be set aside. (Question of law and fact) The petitioner argued that the notice and order were erroneous and sought their quashing. The revenue, through its counsel, produced a communication dated 26.03.2019 from the assessing officer withdrawing the attachment notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Act. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this submission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246 Civil Writ Petition No.6277 of 2019 Decided on : 27.03.2019 Haryana State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. . . . Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent-Revenue. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The prayer made in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the notice dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure P-7) issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and the order dated 19.02.2019 (Annexure P-10) rejecting the stay application filed by the petitioner.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Revenue has produced a copy of communication dated 26.03.2019 addressed to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula issued by the assessing officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula, withdrawing the attachment notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Act. The said communication is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

3.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the present petition has been rendered infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such.

4.

Ordered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 27, 2019 sonia gugnani (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2019.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 226(3)

All 95 judgments and leading authorities on Section 226(3) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →