THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. VILL. PHULLO KHARI, TALWANDI SABOO, BATHINDA (PAN: AABCG5231F)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/470/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117689201714 February 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 32 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the revenue's grievance that the stay had been continued without the appeal being decided, and that a third member had not been nominated to resolve a difference of opinion among the ITAT members. The Court acknowledged that the appellant (revenue) had not made any application to the Tribunal for the nomination of the third member. The Court expressed confidence that if the attention of the Tribunal's President were drawn to the facts, a third member would be nominated forthwith and requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously, considering the issue and the amount involved. The appeal was accordingly disposed of on this basis, without delving into the merits of the stay or the underlying tax dispute.

What were the facts?

This appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (the revenue) challenges an order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order extended a stay granted to HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. (the assessee) in relation to the assessment year 2008-2009. The revenue's primary grievance is that the appeal before the ITAT has been pending for an extended period, with the stay being continued from time to time without the appeal being decided. The revenue pointed to a prior ITAT order dated 14.09.2015 which indicated the appeal was heard and the order was 'under pronouncement'. However, a difference of opinion among the Tribunal members necessitated a reference to a third member, who had not been nominated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in continuing the stay for an extended period without deciding the appeal, thereby causing undue delay in the resolution of the tax dispute for assessment year 2008-2009? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and expeditious disposal of appeals). Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee is the respondent in this appeal before the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel Mr. Denesh Goyal, argued that the ITAT had continued the stay from time to time and that the appeal itself had not been decided. The revenue highlighted that an order dated 14.09.2015 stated the appeal was heard and the order was 'under pronouncement', but a difference of opinion led to a reference to a third member, who had not been nominated. The revenue's grievance is the inordinate delay in the disposal of the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-470-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.02.2018

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

...Appellant Versus

HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:- Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate,

for the appellant.

* * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)

This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.01.2017 extending a stay in the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee. The matter pertains to the assessment year 2008-2009. 2.

The main grievance is that although the stay has been continued from time to time, the matter itself has not been decided by the Tribunal. Mr. Goyal invites our attention to an order dated 14.09.2015 disposing of the appellant’s applications for vacating the stay on the ground that the appeal had been heard and that the order was “under pronouncement”. It appears that there was a difference of opinion between the members of the Tribunal and the matter, therefore, had to be referred to a third member. Mr. Goyal’s grievance is that the third member has not even been nominated since the pronouncement of the order. However, the appellant has also not made any application to the Tribunal for the same. We have no doubt that if the attention of the Amodh Sharma 2018.02.16 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

ITA-470-2017 (O&M)

2 Tribunal is invited to the facts, the President of the Tribunal will forthwith nominate the third member, if not already nominated and request him to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible in view of the issue involved as well as in view of the amount involved. 3.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

(S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 14.02.2018 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

Amodh Sharma 2018.02.16 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →