PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/17/2018HC DelhiDLHC01429292201721 January 2020Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal has become infructuous because the issue raised by the Revenue has already been decided in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its earlier decision in ITA No. 397/2009, dated 07.05.2017. The Court noted that the sole question in the present appeal pertains to the stage at which customs duty drawback accrues as income, which was definitively addressed in the prior judgment. Since the Revenue's counsel did not dispute this position, the appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi (Revenue), filed an appeal against a remand order. The respondent is Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (Assessee). The core issue concerns the assessment year(s) for which the appeal was filed, though not explicitly stated, it relates to the accrual of customs duty drawback as income. The procedural history involves the Revenue filing the present appeal against a remand order. The Assessee's counsel highlighted that the sole question raised by the Revenue pertains to the timing of income accrual for customs duty drawback – either in the year of export or upon the order of the appropriate authority. This issue was previously decided by the High Court in favour of the Assessee in an earlier appeal (ITA No. 397/2009) for assessment year 2004-05.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the customs duty drawback accrues as income in the year of export or when the order is passed by the appropriate authority (question of law). The Revenue's contention, as presented by the Assessee's counsel, is that the appeal raises the question of when customs duty drawback income accrues. The Assessee argues that this issue has already been decided by the High Court in its favour in a prior appeal (ITA No. 397/2009) concerning assessment year 2004-05. The Revenue's counsel did not dispute this position. No specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue beyond the framing of the issue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 17/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Lakshmi Gurung, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms.Talha A.R. and Mr.Siddharth Gupta, Advocates. versus MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms.Kavita Jha and Ms.Devika Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 21.01.2020 1. Mr.Vohra, learned senior counsel for the respondent-assessee points out that the only question raised by the revenue-appellant in the present appeal relates to the stage at which the customs duty drawback would accrue as income i.e., whether in the year of export or when the order is passed by the appropriate authority. He points out that this issue is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in the case of respondent-assessee in ITA No. 397/2009 decided on 07.05.2017 for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. The present appeal is directed against the remand order. The appeal has become infructuous since the issue/question itself has been answered in

favour of the assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the aforesaid position. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in view of the decision rendered by this Court in ITA No. 397/2009 decided on 07.05.2017. VIPIN SANGHI, J SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 21, 2020 v

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →