RAMESHKUMAR TULSIDAS KNAERIYA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
SCA/6256/2021HC GujaratGJHC24017759202127 July 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner's return of income had already been processed by the Centralized Processing Centre on February 23, 2021, and an intimation had been sent. In light of this, the Court found that the petitioner's grievance regarding the validity of the return did not survive. Although the petitioner's counsel pointed out portal issues causing the return to be displayed as 'invalid', the primary fact of processing was accepted. The petition was therefore disposed of. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition in case of future difficulty. No specific finding was made on the portal issue itself, as the petition was disposed of based on the processing of the return.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Tulsidas Knariya, filed a Special Civil Application seeking to have his return of income filed on December 17, 2019, treated as a valid return. 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 with a DIN number 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 his return of income being treated as invalid survives, given that the return has been processed and an intimation sent. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that the return had been processed but argued that the portal still showed the return as 'invalid' due to technical issues with the respondent's portal. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner's grievance did not survive as the return 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/6256/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6256 of 2021 ========================================================== RAMESHKUMAR TULSIDAS KNAERIYA Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance: 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/6256/2021 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 →