PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-02, vs. M/S CENTRE FOR VOCATIONAL & ENTREPRENEURSHIP STUDIES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/273/2016HC DelhiDLHC01082144201631 July 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted the long history of the case, which had already taken over a year to serve the Respondent. Given that notices sent to the Respondent's address were returned unserved, and the Revenue's request for another opportunity to serve dasti, the Court deemed it appropriate to dismiss the appeal. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal once they are certain about the correct present address of the Respondent. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-02, filed an appeal (ITA No. 273/2016) before the High Court of Delhi against an order (not specified in the judgment). The respondent is Centre for Vocational & Entrepreneurship Studies. The appeal was filed in 2016. Despite an order dated April 10, 2017, directing the filing of process fee, it was not filed. The Revenue's counsel stated that notices sent to the respondent's given address were returned unserved with the remark "door found locked." The Revenue requested one more opportunity to serve the respondent dasti, citing the long history of the case and the difficulty in serving the respondent for over a year.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue due to the inability to serve the Respondent, or grant a further opportunity for service. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any contentions from the Respondent (assessee). Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the address provided for the Respondent was correct, despite previous unserved notices. They requested one more opportunity to serve the Respondent dasti, indicating they could achieve service if given this chance. They also highlighted the long history of the case and the extended period it had taken to serve the Respondent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 273/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-02, ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumaar with Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates. versus CENTRE FOR VOCATIONAL & ENTREPRENEURSHIP STUDIES ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 31.07.2017 1. No process fee was filed pursuant to the order dated 10th April, 2017. Today, learned counsel for the Revenue states that the address given in the appeal is the correct address, notwithstanding that the notices issued at the said address have been returned unserved earlier with the remarks “door found locked”. His instructions are that the Revenue will be able to serve the Respondent dasti if one more opportunity is given. 2. Given the long history of this case, when it has already taken more than one year to serve the Respondent, it would be appropriate if the appeal is dismissed with liberty to Revenue to revive the appeal after the Revenue is sure about the correct present address of the Respondent. Ordered

accordingly. S.MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. JULY 31, 2017 srb

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →