MAYUR DYECHEM INTERMEDIATES LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
SCA/18207/2021HC GujaratGJHC24065913202110 December 2021Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Soparkar, had chosen not to press the matter at that stage. Consequently, the Court decided not to go into the merits of the case. The disposal of the petition was made without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue other legal remedies. No specific finding was given on the validity of the reopening notice or the subsequent order. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mayur Dyechem Intermediates Limited, challenged the reopening of assessment for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016. The assessee questioned the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.03.2021, and an order dated 11.11.2021. The assessee argued that for AY 2013-2014, there was no transaction with Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. For the subsequent AYs, commissions were paid to Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. The High Court had previously directed the department to produce the relevant papers. The matter was listed for further hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening of assessment for AYs 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 is contrary to law? 2. Whether the order dated 11.11.2021 is liable to be quashed and set aside? Assessee's Contentions: For AY 2013-2014, there was no transaction with Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. For AYs 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, the petitioner had paid commission to Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions are recorded in the judgment for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/SCA/18207/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18207 of 2021 ========================================================== MAYUR DYECHEM INTERMEDIATES LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD ========================================================== Appearance: MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

Date : 10/12/2021

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. This Court, on 07.12.2021, had passed the following order: 1. The challenge is to the reopening of Assessment for the Assessment Years 2013- 2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 alleged to be an act contrary to law, hence the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2021 has been questioned with the following prayers: “7… (a)quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 at Annexure-’A’ to this petition; Page 1 of 3

C/SCA/18207/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2021 (b) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 at Annexure-’G’ to this Petition; (c) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operation of the notice at Annexure-’A’ to this petition and stay further proceedings for assessment and recovery for A.Y.2013- 2014; (d) any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; (e)to provide for the cost of this petition.” 2. We have heard the learned advocate, Mr.Bandish Soparkar, who has drawn our attention to the fact that in case of these very Assessees for the subsequent Assessment Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 the petitions have been filed being Special Civil Application Nos.18207 and 18204 of 2021. He has further urged that for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 there has been no transaction with Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. For the subsequent Assessment Years 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 the petitioner has Page 2 of 3

C/SCA/18207/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2021 paid

the

commission

Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd 3. Before we even seek to consider the matter further, we would request the learned senior counsel, Mr.Bhatt to call for the papers from the department and to assist the cause. 4. Let the matters appear on 10.12.2021. 2. Today, Mr. Bhatt, learned senior advocate had furnished the papers by calling them from the department. 3. We have heard Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate and Mr. Bhatt, learned senior advocate. Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate has chosen not to press this matter at this stage. We have chosen not to go into the merits of the matter. This disposal will not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing other legal remedies. (SONIA GOKANI, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →