HOME CREDIT INDIA FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/27901/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01159670202330 July 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that while it does not find fault with the DRP's jurisdiction to correct errors in proceedings, it cannot overlook the fact that the final order was passed without taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner. The Court found itself unable to sustain the order dated September 29, 2023 (Annexure P-5). Consequently, the Court set aside the said order and directed the DRP to consider the objections which had already been raised by the petitioner and pass a final order expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of the order. If demanded, personal hearing may be provided to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed to the aforesaid extent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Home Credit India Finance Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 29, 2023, passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The petitioner had submitted its objections within the prescribed 30-day period. The revenue contended that the order should not be set aside solely on grounds of irregularity. The High Court considered the law as laid down in Alcatel Lucent India Limited vs. National E Assessment Centre and Kapurchand Shrimmal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The DRP had issued final directions before considering the objections raised by the petitioner. The High Court noted that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to correct errors in proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the DRP order dated September 29, 2023, is liable to be set aside on account of procedural irregularities, specifically concerning the consideration of objections raised by the petitioner (mixed question of law and fact, relating to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the DRP ought not to have passed the final order without considering the objections it had raised within the stipulated period. The petitioner relied on the principle that appellate authorities have jurisdiction to correct errors in proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that the order should not be set aside merely on account of procedural irregularity. The revenue's counsel argued that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to correct errors in proceedings, implying that the DRP's order, even if flawed procedurally, could still be rectified or considered in light of the law.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-27901-202 110+278

IN TH

HOME CRED ASSESSMEN

CORAM: H

Present: M M M

f SANJEEV P

CM-4560-CW

A is allowed.

R Main case 1. Consid respect 23 (O&M)

Page 1 of 3 (THROUGH V HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

DIT INDIA FINANCE PRIVAT Vs.

NT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPA ****

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate and Mr. Sachit Jolly, Advocate Ms. Kuljeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Co for the respondents/Revenue.

**** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) WP-2024 Application for placing on record Registry to place the same at app ering the short issue involved in ive counsel on merits. VC) AB AND HARYANA AT RH CM-4560-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-27901-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.07.2024 TE LIMITED . . . . Petitioner ARTMENT AND ORS . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ounsel ) d reply on behalf of respondents propriate place. n the present case, we heard the

d ) 4 r s s e MOHIT GOYAL 2024.07.31 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-27901-202 2. It is an petition period o 3. Learne irregula 4. We hav in the c Centre the Ap Tax, An was he errors i 5. Howev appella objectio passing 6. In view the obj sustain (Annex objectio final o hencefo petition 23 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3 admitted position that before the ner had already submitted its o of 30 days. ed counsel for the Revenue su arity, the order ought not be set a ve considered the law as conside case of Alcatel Lucent India Lim & Anr. In W.P.(C) 4981/2021, a ex Court in Kapurchand Shrim ndhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, 198 eld that the appellate authority n proceedings under appeal. ver, while this Court does not ate authority has the jurisdiction ons if any placed on record o g the final order. w of the fact that the final order ections as raised by the petition such an order, and we set asi xure P-5) with further direction ons which have already been rai order, expeditiously, say withi orth. If demanded, personal he ner. e DRP issued final direction, the objections within the prescribed ubmits that on account of this aside. ered by the High Court of Delhi mited vs. National E Assessment and also the judgment passed by mal vs. Commissioner of Income 81 ITR SC 131 451, wherein it has jurisdiction to correct the in any manner hold that the to correct errors in proceedings, ought to be considered before does not take into consideration ner, we find ourselves unable to ide the order dated 29.09.2023 n to the DRP to consider the ised by the petitioner and pass a in a period of three months earing may be provided to the

e d s i t y e t e e , e n o 3 e a s e MOHIT GOYAL 2024.07.31 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-27901-202 7. Writ Pe 8. All pen

July 30, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 23 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3 etition is accordingly allowed to nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y the aforesaid extent. posed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.07.31 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →