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

REVP/25/2024HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01000367202408 February 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, allowed the review petition. The Court found merit in the Revenue's submission regarding the mistaken recording of notice withdrawal. Consequently, the Court ordered the deletion and modification of specific paragraphs in its previous order dated December 5, 2023. Paragraph 5 was deleted and replaced to reflect that the Revenue had already filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Similarly, Paragraph 6 was modified to state that the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer had lost its efficacy because the Revenue had moved an application under Section 245D(6) and 245D(7) of the Income Tax Act before the Settlement Commission. Paragraph 7 was also deleted and replaced with the same clarification. The rest of the previous order was to remain intact. The operative direction was to dispose of the review petition accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others) filed a review petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, seeking to review an order passed by the Court on December 5, 2023, in WPT No. 144 of 2023. The Revenue contended that the Court mistakenly recorded that they had withdrawn a notice, whereas no such withdrawal occurred. They further submitted that an application for recalling an order dated January 15, 2019, had been filed before the Settlement Commission. The Revenue sought a review of the December 5, 2023 order based on these factual assertions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was an apparent mistake on the face of the record regarding the withdrawal of a notice by the Revenue, as recorded in the Court's previous order dated December 5, 2023, concerning WPT No. 144 of 2023? (Question of fact and law) Assessee (Revenue) Contentions: - The Court erroneously observed that the Revenue had withdrawn a notice, when in fact, no such withdrawal took place. - An application for recalling an order dated January 15, 2019, has been filed before the Settlement Commission. Revenue (Respondent No. 3) Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the Revenue in the review petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

245D(6), 245D(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 25 of 2024

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

Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Chhattisgarh Having His Office At Aayakar Bhawan, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492001 (Res. 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 (Res. No. 6 In The Writ Peition) ---- Petitioner 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. (Res. 1 In The Writ Petition)

Central Board of Direct Taxes Having Its Office At The North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi - 110002 (Res. 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. 144 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 →