PARKER BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the petitioner. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn. The notice was discharged with no order as to costs. The court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the assessment order. Furthermore, it was clarified that the period during which the petitioner had been prosecuting the present proceedings before the High Court would be excluded when considering any application for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal. The court also directed that if the petitioner moves an application for stay of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer shall decide the same expeditiously within a period of one week from the date of receipt thereof.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Parker Bullion Private Limited, filed a Special Civil Application (SCA) No. 1149 of 2019 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The respondent was the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3). The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition to avail of an alternative statutory remedy. The petitioner also intended to approach the Assessing Officer for a stay of the assessment order, requesting that such application be decided expeditiously within a week. The High Court granted permission to withdraw the petition and discharged the notice. The court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the assessment order and that the period spent prosecuting the present proceedings would be excluded for considering any application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the Special Civil Application to pursue an alternative statutory remedy. Assessee's Contention: Mr. S.N. Soparkar, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, under instructions, sought permission to withdraw the petition to avail of the alternative statutory remedy. He further stated that the petitioner would approach the Assessing Officer for a stay of the assessment order and requested that this application be decided expeditiously within a week. Revenue's Contention: Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate for the respondent, was present and heard. No specific contention against the withdrawal was recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/SCA/1149/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1149 of 2019 ========================================================== PARKER BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED Versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) ========================================================== Appearance: MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA(2475) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MR BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 01/04/2019
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mr. S. N. Soparkar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Ms. Archana Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent. 2. Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the petition with a view to avail of the alternative statutory remedy. He further submits that the petitioner would approach the Assessing Officer for stay of the assessment order and that the same may be decided as expeditiously as possible within a week of receipt of such application. Page 1 of 2
C/SCA/1149/2019 ORDER 3. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. 4. In case the petitioner moves an application for stay of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer shall decide the same expeditiously within a period of one week from the date of receipt thereof. It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the assessment order. It is further clarified that the period during which the petitioner has been prosecuting the present proceedings before this court shall be excluded while considering the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) Z.G. SHAIKH Page 2 of 2
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
