M/S CEVA LOGESTICS INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6911/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01153837201822 February 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Draft Assessment Order was an appealable order under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the Court declined to go into the merits of the controversy presented in the writ petition. The principle applied is that writ jurisdiction is generally not to be exercised when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available. The Court disposed of the writ petition by relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner was granted three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order to file an appeal. It was clarified that if filed within this period, the appeal would not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation and would be decided in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court chose not to decide the merits of the assessment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Ceva Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging a Draft Assessment Order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 143(3)/144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition instead of pursuing the statutory remedy of appeal. The High Court noted that the order under challenge was appealable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a Draft Assessment Order when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Income-tax Act, 1961? (Question of law turning on the principles of alternative remedy and writ jurisdiction). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner filed a writ petition. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the assessment order. The primary submission was a request for time to file an appeal if one had not already been filed. Revenue's Contention: The respondent, represented by Sr. Standing Counsel, did not dispute that the assessment order was appealable. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the merits of the assessment order or the maintainability of the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6911-2018 Decided on: 22.02.2019 M/s. Ceva Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner

Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

, J (ORAL)

Challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, is for quashing of Draft Assessment Order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) under Section 143(3)/144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed by the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner could not dispute that the aforesaid Assessment Order is an appealable order. Accordingly, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and without going into the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the writ petition by relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no separate instructions with regard to the factum whether any appeal has been filed or not. However, prayer was made that in case the appeal has not been filed during the pendency of the writ petition, time may be granted to file an appeal. DINESH KUMAR 2019.03.05 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6911-2018 -2- 4. Accordingly, in view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is, however, clarified that in case such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period, the same shall not be dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation and decided in accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE 22.02.2019

Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2019.03.05 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →