GUBARJI MATHURJI THAKOR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
SCA/7226/2019HC GujaratGJHC24024725201910 March 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it should not interfere with the impugned recovery notice dated March 13, 2019. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's admission, through their counsel, that they were unable to deposit the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- by the stipulated date of April 26, 2019, as per the Court's earlier order. Since the condition precedent for the stay on coercive recovery was not met, the Court found no grounds to grant further relief. The writ application was accordingly rejected. No other issues were decided, and no specific amount in dispute beyond the Rs. 20,00,000/- condition was mentioned.

What were the facts?

The writ applicant, Gubraji Mathurji Thakor, filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The application sought to quash and set aside a recovery notice dated March 13, 2019, issued by the Income Tax Officer. The High Court, in an earlier order dated April 11, 2019, had issued notice and granted a stay on coercive recovery, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 20,00,000/- by April 26, 2019. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the stipulated deposit could not be made by the due date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned recovery notice dated March 13, 2019, in light of the petitioner's failure to comply with the condition of depositing Rs. 20,00,000/- by April 26, 2019, as stipulated in the Court's order dated April 11, 2019. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner sought to quash the recovery notice. The specific arguments leading to this prayer are not detailed in the judgment, beyond the general request for relief. Revenue's contentions: The revenue issued the recovery notice. No specific arguments from the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/SCA/7226/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7226 of 2019 ========================================================== GUBARJI MATHURJI THAKOR Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ========================================================== Appearance: MR CHINTAN DAVE ADVOCATE FOR HLP ASSOCIATES LLP(9263) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

Date : 10/03/2021

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any   other   appropriate   writ   in   the   nature   of   mandamus   and/or   an appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing and setting aside the impugned   recovery   notice   dated   13.03.2019   issued   by   respondent authority being bad in law. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble   Court   may   be   pleased   to   stay   the   operation,   execution   and implementation of the impugned recovery notice dated 13.03.2019 issued by the respondent authority. (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief and/or order in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner.” 2 We take notice of the order dated 11th  April 2019 passed by a Page 1 of 2

C/SCA/7226/2019 ORDER Coordinate Bench of this Court. The order reads thus: “Heard Mr. Chintan Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner. Issue  Notice  returnable on 29th  April, 2019. Till then,  coercive recovery shall not be made pursuant to the notice dated 13.3.2019, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,00,000/­ with the respondents on or before 26th April, 2019.” 3 Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant, with his usual fairness, submitted that his client has not been able to deposit a sum of Rs.20 Lakh on or before the date stipulated in the order referred to above. 4 In view of such statement being made by Mr. Dave, we are of the view that we should not interfere with the impugned recovery notice dated 13th  March 2019. This writ application, accordingly, fails and is hereby rejected. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (ILESH J. VORA,J) CHANDRESH Page 2 of 2

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →