SURESHKUMAR TULSIDAS KNAERIYA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
SCA/6255/2021HC GujaratGJHC24017762202127 July 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI2 pages
AI SummaryDisposed Of

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat held that the petitioner's grievance did not survive in view of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, which confirmed that the petitioner's return of income had already been processed and an intimation had been sent. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute this fact. Therefore, the petition was disposed of. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition in case of any difficulty, implying that the formal processing of the return addressed the core issue raised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sureshkuamr Tulsidas Knariya, filed a Special Civil Application seeking to have his return of income filed on December 17, 2019, treated as valid. The respondent, Assistant Director of Income Tax, stated in its affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner's return had already been processed by the Centralized Processing Centre on February 23, 2021, and an intimation had been sent. The respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner's grievance no longer survived. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged this but pointed out that the return was still shown as 'invalid' on the respondent's portal due to portal issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding the validity of his return of income survives, given that it has been processed by the respondent. (Question of fact) Assessee's contention: The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that the return had been processed but argued that the return was still displayed as 'invalid' on the respondent's portal due to technical issues with the portal, implying a lingering concern about its formal validity. Revenue's contention: The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner's grievance did not survive because the return of income had already been processed by the Centralized Processing Centre and an intimation had been sent to the petitioner.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/SCA/6255/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6255 of 2021 ========================================================== SURESHKUMAR TULSIDAS KNAERIYA Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance: MR DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI and HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

Date : 27/07/2021

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking the prayer as contained in Prayer Clause III(A) of the petition for treating the return filed by the petitioner on 17.12.2019 as a valid return. It may be noted that as stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, the petitioner’s return of income has already been processed by the Centralized Processing Centre on 23.2.2021 and the intimation with the DIN number has already been sent to the petitioner. 2. In view of the above, the learned Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel appearing for the respondent submits that the grievance of the petitioner does not survive in view of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent. Page 1 of 2

C/SCA/6255/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2021 3. The learned Advocate Mr. D. R. Patel appearing for the petitioner, does not dispute the said position, however, submits that the portal of the respondent being not in order, the petitioner’s return of income is still shown as “invalid”. 4. In any case, in view of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, since the return of the petitioner has already been processed, treating the same as a valid return, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive. The petition, therefore, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive the same in case of difficulty. (BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) (A. C. JOSHI,J) V.V.P. PODUVAL Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →