DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 CIRCLE-(1) RAIPUR, vs. UNION OF INDIA

REVP/18/2024HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01000345202408 February 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, allowed the review petition. The Court found merit in the petitioners' submission that there was an apparent mistake in its previous order. Consequently, paragraph 5 of the order dated December 5, 2023, was deleted and modified to reflect that the Revenue authorities had already filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Similarly, paragraph 6 was deleted and modified to state that the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer had lost its efficacy because the Revenue had already moved an application under Section 245D(6) and 245D(7) of the Income Tax Act. Paragraph 7 was also deleted and replaced to reiterate that the Revenue had filed an application before the Settlement Commission under the aforementioned sections. The rest of the High Court's previous order was to remain intact. The review petition was accordingly disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, identified as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and other revenue authorities, sought a review of an order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh on December 5, 2023, in WPT No. 140 of 2023. The petitioners contended that the High Court erroneously recorded that they had withdrawn a notice, which they claim was not the case. They further submitted that an application for recalling an order dated January 15, 2019, had been filed before the Settlement Commission. The respondents included the Union of India, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, and M/s Sumeet Gems and Jewellers Private Limited. The review petition was filed to correct this alleged apparent mistake on the face of the record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was an apparent mistake on the face of the record in the High Court's order dated December 5, 2023, regarding the withdrawal of a notice by the revenue authorities? (Question of fact and law) Assessee (Revenue Authorities) Contentions: - The High Court's observation that they had withdrawn a notice was incorrect; no such withdrawal occurred. - An application for recalling an order dated January 15, 2019, had been filed before the Settlement Commission. - The notice issued by the Income Tax Officer had lost its efficacy due to the subsequent filing of an application before the Settlement Commission. Revenue (M/s Sumeet Gems and Jewellers Private Limited) Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue in the review petition, other than their appearance through counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 245D(6), Section 245D(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 18 of 2024

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Circle-(1) Raipur, Having His Office At Aayakar Bhawan, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001, (Respondent No. 3 In The Writ Petition)

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Raipur Having His Office At Aayakar Bhawan, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001, (Respondent No. 4 In The Writ Petition)

Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Chhattisgarh Having His Office At Aayakar Bhawan, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 4920001, (Respondent No. 5 In The Writ Petition)

Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Madhya Pradesh And Chhattisgarh Having His Office At Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Arera Colony, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 462026, (Respondent No. 6 In The Writ Petition) ---- PETITIONERS Versus

Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue, Having His Office At The Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi - 110001, (Respondent No. 1 In The Writ Petition)

Central Board Of Direct Taxes Having Its Office At The North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi - 110002, (Respondent No. 2 In The Writ Petition)

M/s Sumeet Gems And Jewellers Private Limited

A Company Within The Meaning Of The Companies Act, 2013, Through Its Authorized Signatory And Director Shri Ankit Kankariya S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Kankariya, Aged About 33 Years Having Its Registered Office At Tahir Plaza, Malviya Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001, (Petitioner In The Writ Petition) --- RESPONDENTS _____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Chaudhari with Mr. Ajay Khumrani, Advocates For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate ______________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09/ 02/ 2024

The petitioner has prayed for review of the order passed by this Court on 05.12.2023 in WPT No. 140 of 2023 mainly contending that this Court while disposing the writ petition has observed that they have withdrawn the notice wherein they have not withdraw the notice. He would further submit that this is the apparent mistake on the face of the record has neither notice was withdrawn nor any decision has been taken to withdraw the same. He would further submit that subsequently the application for recalling of the order dated 15.01.2019 has already been filed before the Settlement Commission. In view of the above factual matrix, he would pray for review of the order date 05.12.2023. 2. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Considering the submission, paragraph 5 is deleted and it be added that the Revenue authority has already been filed application before the Settlement Commission. Similarly paragraph-6 be deleted and modified to the extent that the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer has lost its efficacy as the Revenue has already moved an application under Section 245D (6) and 245 D(7) of the I.T. Act. Paragraph -7 is also deleted and it be replaced as the Revenue has already filed an application under Section 245D (6) and 245 D(7) of the I.T. Act before the Settlement Commission, as such other part of the order passed by this Court shall remain intact.

Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of.

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge Santosh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →