NAGENDRA SINGH vs. THE PRINCIPAL,COMMI.OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

CW/3551/2017HC RajasthanRJHC01039764201719 January 2019Author: SANGEET LODHA2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the CIT (Appeals), Bikaner, to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the assessment order for Assessment Year 2012-13 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The court also ordered that the interim order previously passed by the High Court, which stayed coercive action for recovery of the demand provided the petitioner furnished a solvent surety, shall continue until the disposal of the appeal. The court did not explicitly rule on the jurisdiction of the CIT (Appeals) to pass interim orders but provided a practical resolution by expediting the appeal process and extending the interim protection.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nagendra Singh, is the legal heir of the late Smt. Ratan Kanwar. He has challenged a demand notice dated December 22, 2016, issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (1), Bikaner, for outstanding dues of Rs. 3,95,71,690/- for Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner had already filed an appeal against the assessment order before the CIT (Appeals), Bikaner. The present writ petition was filed because the petitioner believed the CIT (Appeals) lacked the jurisdiction to pass an interim order staying the recovery of the demand pending the appeal's disposal. This court had previously granted an interim order on March 28, 2017, preventing coercive action for recovery, subject to the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety for the disputed amount.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT (Appeals) has the jurisdiction to pass an interim order staying the recovery of demand pending disposal of an appeal, and if not, what is the recourse for the assessee? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the CIT (Appeals) does not have the jurisdiction to pass an interim order staying the recovery of demand pending the appeal's disposal, necessitating the present writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Income Tax Officer) fairly submitted that since the interim order had been operative for approximately two years, it would be appropriate to direct the CIT (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal within a stipulated time and continue the interim order granted by this court until the appeal's disposal. The revenue did not contest the petitioner's assertion regarding the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction but proposed a practical solution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ No. 3551/2017 Nagendra Singh, aged 50 years, S/o Late Sh. Thakur Mangal Singh Legal Heir of Late Smt. Ratan Kanwar, R/o Sankhu House, Kuchilpura, Bikaner. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Bikaner. 2. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (1), Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Order 19/01/2019 This petition is direction against the demand notice dated 22.12.2016 (Annex.4) issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (1), Bikaner, whereby the petitioner is directed to deposit outstanding dues, a sum of Rs.3,95,71,690/-, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Admittedly, the petitioner has already preferred appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer before the C.I.T. (Appeals), Bikaner. The present writ petition was filed for the reason that C.I.T. (Appeals), Bikaner, has no jurisdiction to pass interim order staying the recovery of the demand pending disposal of the appeal.

(2 of 2) [CW-3551/2017] On 28.03.2017 while issuing notices to the respondents, an interim order was passed by this Court in favour of petitioner in the following terms: “In the meanwhile and until the next date, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of impugned demand provided the petitioner furnishes solvent surety for Rs.3,95,71,690/- to the satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (1), Bikaner, within a period of one month.” Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that since the interim order is operative for last about two years, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate that the C.I.T. (Appeals), Bikaner, is directed to dispose of the pending appeal within stipulated time and the interim order passed by this Court, as aforesaid, may be continued till disposal of the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is agreeable for disposal of writ petition in the manner suggested by the counsel for the Revenue. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to C.I.T. (Appeals), Bikaner, to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the assessment order for the A.Y. 2012-13, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Till the disposal of the appeal, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue. (SANGEET LODHA),J 36-DJ/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →