M/s Gold Bricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax appeals
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition. It directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent No. 1) to decide the petitioner's pending appeal within a further period of four weeks. The Court further observed that until the decision on the appeal, the respondents (including the assessing officer) shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for the recovery of the disputed demand, keeping the demand notice in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment itself but focused on the procedural aspect of expediting the appeal and staying recovery. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where an appeal is pending against a high-pitched assessment, the appellate authority should be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, and coercive recovery should be stayed pending that decision.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. Goldbricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., is aggrieved by an assessment order dated March 31, 2016, for assessment year 2013-14, which raised a demand of Rs. 30,55,130. The petitioner contended that the assessment was unreasonably high-pitched. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent No. 1). The petitioner sought a stay on coercive recovery steps, arguing that if the demand notice's effect was not stayed, the assessing officer (respondent No. 3) would attach property and bank accounts. The petitioner relied on departmental instructions and High Court decisions regarding stays in cases of harsh assessments.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the respondent No. 1 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner within a stipulated period, and whether coercive steps for recovery of the disputed demand should be stayed pending the appeal's decision. (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and recovery powers). Assessee's Arguments: - The assessment of Rs. 30,55,130 is unreasonably high-pitched. - Departmental Instruction No. 96 mandates that recovery should normally be stayed when an appeal is preferred against a harsh assessment. - Relied on Delhi High Court in Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others (2010) 324 ITR 247, Rajasthan High Court in His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji Of Mewar vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & others (1997) 223 ITR 192, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Northern Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others (2015) 25 ITJ 492, and a Madhya Pradesh High Court order in Municipal Corporation, Satna vs. Union of India and others (2014). - A co-ordinate bench of the High Court had passed a similar order in W.P.(T) 72 of 2015. Revenue's Arguments: - The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that instead of keeping the petition pending, it may be disposed of as the petitioner has already preferred an appeal. - During the pendency of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, and the appeal would be decided within four weeks.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page 1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(T). No. 67 of 2016
M/s. Goldbricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Kachna, Main Road, Khamrdih, Near G.A.D. Colony, Raipur, Through : Rakesh Saraogi (Director), S/o. Shri Satya Narayan Saraogi, aged about 52 years, Subhash Road, Ganjpara, Raipur, R/o. Anandam World City, Kachna Main Road, Near G.A.D. Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ----Petitioner Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer-I (1) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Romir Sumit Goyal, Advocate For Respondents : Mrs. Nausina Afrin Ali, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 10/05/2016
The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand made of Rs.30,55,130/- (Annexure P/1) in the assessment order dated 31.03.2016, for assessment year 2013-14. According to the petitioner, an un- reasonable high pitched assessment has been made by the assessing officer i.e. the respondent No.3 herein.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the assessment order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-3 and if the effect and operation of the demand
Page 2 notice is not stayed, the respondent No.3 shall take coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of disputed demand by attachment of the property and the bank accounts. It is contended that since the appeal has been preferred against such assessment order, the respondents may be directed to follow their own instructions No.96, which directs that in case of harsh assessment, if appeal is preferred, then in such case, the recovery should be normally stayed. The counsel submits that in the instant case, assessment has been made to the extent of Rs.30,55,130/-, which will certainly fall within the ambit of harsh assessment. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in the matter of Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others reported in (2010) 324 ITR 247, decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji Of Mewar vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & others reported in (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj), decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Northern Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in (2015) 25 ITJ 492 (MP) and the order dated 30.09.2014 passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.14939/2014 (Municipal submit that in the similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in W.P.(T) 72 of 2015 has passed the similar like nature of the order, therefore, the recovery be stayed since the appeal is pending.
Counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that instead of keeping this petition pending it may be disposed of as the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 and that Page 3 during the pendency of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner and the appeal would be decided within four weeks.
Considering the submission made by the parties, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner within further period of four weeks. It is further observed that till the decision on the said appeal, respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of disputed demand keeping the demand notice in abeyance.
In view of above, the petition is disposed of. (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE Balram
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
