RADHIKA JEWELTECH LTD. vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 OR HIS SUCCESSOR

PDF · subscribers
SCA/10239/2022HC GujaratGJHC24033391202214 June 2022Bench: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, in its oral order, observed that it is an undisputed fact that the appeals are pending for final disposal. Based on this observation, the Court dismissed the Special Civil Application. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the excess taxes paid or the maintainability of the revision petition. The dismissal is solely predicated on the pendency of appeals. Therefore, no specific finding was given on the issues raised by the petitioner. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Radhika Jeweltech Ltd., filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Gujarat. The petition challenged two orders dated 05.03.2020 and 25.03.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (or his successor). These orders rejected the petitioner's claim for excess taxes paid for Assessment Year 2018-19 and directed the issuance of a refund with interest. The petitioner also sought a direction to hold that their revision petition filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act was maintainable and to direct its disposal on merits. The petitioner requested interim relief to maintain status quo. The High Court noted that appeals were pending for final disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 05.03.2020 and 25.03.2022 passed by the Respondent rejecting the claim of excess taxes paid for A.Y. 2018-19 and directing the Respondent to issue refund with interest of excess taxes paid are liable to be quashed and set aside? (Question of law and fact, relating to refund of excess taxes paid). 2. Whether the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act was maintainable, and whether the Respondent should be directed to dispose of the same on merits? (Question of law and fact, relating to the maintainability and disposal of a revision petition). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders rejecting their claim for excess taxes paid and their revision petition were erroneous and that the revision petition should be held maintainable and disposed of on merits. They sought a writ of mandamus or certiorari to quash the impugned orders and direct the refund with interest, and also to direct the disposal of the revision petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the fact that the impugned orders were passed by the revenue indicates their stance against the petitioner's claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/SCA/10239/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10239 of 2022 ================================================================ RADHIKA JEWELTECH LTD. Versus PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 OR HIS SUCCESSOR ================================================================ Appearance: MR SN DIVATIA(1378) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

Date : 14/06/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, following prayers have been made : “(a) to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing and setting the impugned orders dated 05.03.2020 and 25.03.2022 [Annex.-A] [Colly.] passed by the Respondent rejecting the claim of excess taxes paid for A.Y. 2018-19 and directing the Respondent to issue refund with interest of excess taxes paid. (b) to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions holding that the Revision Petition filed byt eh Petitioner u/s 264 of the Act was maintainable and direct him to dispose off the same on merits. (c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Page 1 of 2

C/SCA/10239/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2022 petition to maintain status quo in the matter and ask the Respondent and its subordinates not to take any action or to do anything in furtherance and pursuance of this impugned order. (d) To allow this Petition with cost. (e) To pass any further or other orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case.” It is an undisputed fact that the appeals are pending for final disposal. Hence, we dismiss this petition. (A.J.DESAI, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) Dolly Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →