COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BILASPUR vs. M/S SWASTIK RICE MILL, KHARASIA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the Income Tax Appeal No. 70/2003. The dismissal was for non-compliance with a peremptory order dated 18-09-2006. The court had previously granted time to the appellant (Swastik Rice Mill) to remove the default. Upon failure to comply within the stipulated period, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No specific findings on the merits of the income tax issues were recorded as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds. The ratio decidendi is that failure to comply with court orders, particularly peremptory ones, leads to dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.
What were the facts?
This is an Income Tax Appeal (ITA No. 70/2003) filed by Swastik Rice Mill, Bilaspur (CG) against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur (CG). The appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, heard the matter. The appeal was listed before a Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. A default was noted, and the appellant was granted time to remove it. The order dated 18-09-2006 indicates that the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with a peremptory order. The note sheet part of the order contains details for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, turning on the procedural compliance with court orders. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee (appellant) regarding the merits of the appeal or against the dismissal for non-prosecution. The focus appears to be on the procedural aspect of complying with the court's peremptory order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue (respondent). However, the dismissal order implies that the revenue's position, or at least the court's procedural requirement, led to the dismissal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
...... ...... IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH! I T A NOW OF 2003 giV§-§L. 'Beneh' gAPPELLANT V z (’ Conihmssmner, Income 1‘ Tax? Bllaspur‘ (C G)' ,' VERSUS a § , 1 I /, I W g‘ SPONDENT /M/ ‘ Swastik Rice Min ara31a [CG] ,x ' ‘ ‘ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OE INCOME TAX ACT A § 1961 E T I
XI-HC-22 Wamfrwm Division Bench ' on ble Sh mQQ-ZOOB Shn AmitChaudhan learn d counsel fer the appellant granted to remove the default falling which the appeal shall stan dismissed Finally, two weeks time u Sdl— Chief Justice ‘for non-prosecution Without #W Sd/- K Satish K. Agnihou‘i Judge 011% W) Hon’bie Shn S R Nayak CJ n atishK A nlho ' w
" wjazm‘Mm-mw-r .» XI—HC-78 DA. m $rm W? Hma‘r %mm am anénm matm anhr . ' a ' é;W 31m ' w 1142.2006: 0;}, V This I T.A. No. 70/2003 is mated'as i' ‘i ? fa: § dismissed for non campiiame of i peremptory Older dated 18-09-2006 (For : detaxls note sheet part may kmdly be seen.) (1' i Counsel be mfotmed accordingly l 1‘ ? ; xx x ‘_ Sd/. A RC3)
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
