LAXMI NIWAS SARDA vs. UNION OF INDIA

WPT/233/2023HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01033480202326 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, to consider and decide the petitioner's pending appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The Court set an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receiving a copy of the order for the decision to be made. The Court did not delve into the merits of the appeal itself but focused on ensuring its timely adjudication. The reasoning was based on the facts presented, including the long pendency of the appeal and the explanation provided by the revenue for the delay. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must ensure timely disposal of appeals filed under tax statutes, and courts can direct such action when undue delays occur.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Laxmi Niwas Sarda, filed an appeal under Section 246A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, against an order pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was filed on January 28, 2019, and written submissions were made on March 1, 2021. The petitioner approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur through a writ petition (WPT No. 233 of 2023) seeking a direction to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Respondent No. 2), to decide the pending appeal at the earliest. The respondents attributed the delay to the new National Faceless Scheme and issues with record transfer or traceability.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, has unduly delayed the decision on the petitioner's appeal filed under Section 246A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and timeliness of appeal disposal). Assessee's Contention: The appeal was filed on January 28, 2019, and written submissions were made on March 1, 2021, but the appeal remains undecided by Respondent No. 2 for reasons unknown. Revenue's Contention: The delay in disposing of the petitioner's appeal is due to the implementation of the National Faceless Scheme, which involves a new method of hearing, and issues related to the transfer or traceability of records.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 233 of 2023 1 - Laxmi Niwas Sarda S/o Late Shri Ratanlal Sarda Aged About 79 Years 2, White Church Road, Opp. Aaykar Bhawan, Indore (Mp), Presently R/o Guru Kripa, Jain School Road, Ward No. 19, Wardhman Nagar, P.S. And P.O. And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Pin- 491-441

... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2 - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Through Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Nafac), Delhi, North Block, New Delhi 3 - Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1(1) Room No. 115, Aaykar Bhawan Annex, White Church Road, Indore (Mp) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S. Rajeswara Rao, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 27/08/2024 1. Heard. 2. The limited relief that the petitioner has sought for in the present petition is a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the

2 pending appeal filed under Section 246A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 at the earliest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appeal was filed against the order of Assessment Year – 2014-15 on 28.1.2019 and on 01.03.2021 written submission was filed but till date, the appeal has not been decided for the reasons best known to respondent No.2. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent would submit that on account of new method of hearing i.e. National Faceless Scheme, it takes time and records have not been transferred or traceable, therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not be disposed of. 5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition as of now is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to ensure that the appeal of the petitioner which has been filed is considered and decided on its merits in accordance with law as far as possible within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Alok

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →