COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S R.R.FINANCIAL OF CONSULTAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/587/2004HC DelhiDLHC01017057200431 May 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending given the circumstances. The Court noted the repeated attempts to serve notice on the Respondent/Assessee, the lack of a correct address, and the report that the firm had been locked for an extended period. Consequently, the Court decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The dismissal was granted with liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal if they could locate the present correct address of the Respondent/Assessee. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant/Revenue) against R.R. Financial Consultants (P) Ltd. (Respondent/Assessee). The appeal was admitted on September 24, 2004, with a question of law framed, but no notice was initially issued to the Respondent. Subsequently, on May 25, 2007, notice was directed to be issued without process fee. However, for a period, notice could not be served due to a lack of a correct address. In 2008, the notice was returned unserved with a report indicating the firm had been locked for two to three years. The High Court found no further utility in keeping the appeal pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution, considering the inability to serve notice on the Respondent/Assessee and the firm being found locked for several years. The Revenue argued that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the persistent inability to serve the Respondent and the firm's apparent closure. The Revenue contended that keeping the appeal pending would serve no useful purpose. No specific arguments were recorded for the Respondent/Assessee, likely due to their non-appearance.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-215 +

ITA 587/2004

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior standing counsel with Mr. Anup Kumar Kesari, Advocate.

versus

R.R. FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS (P) LTD. ..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

31.05.2016

1.

It appears that when this appeal was admitted on 24th September 2004 and the question of law was framed, no notice was issued to the Respondent/Assessee. Subsequently on 25th May 2007 notice was directed to be issued to the Respondent without process fee.

2.

The office noting shows that for some time thereafter notice could not be issued to the Respondent for want of address. Thereafter in 2008 notice was received back unserved with the report that “the firm is found locked for the last two or three years.”

3.

In the circumstances, the Court sees no useful purpose in keeping this appeal pending. The appeal is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution

with liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case the present correct address of the Respondent/Assessee is able to be located.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 31, 2016/Rm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →