M/S Porwal Auto Components Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 (1) Indore

PDF · subscribers
WP/15804/2021HC Madhya Pradesh22 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA2 pages
For Petitioner: Ashish GoyalFor Respondent: Veena Mandlik
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition had been settled by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 (Union of India Vs Ashish Agarwal). The Apex Court had upheld the validity of the amendment brought into Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the orders and directions issued by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment and connected appeals. The specific relief granted to the petitioner is not detailed, but the disposal is based on the Apex Court's ruling. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Porwal Auto Components Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The petition challenged certain actions or orders related to income tax proceedings. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Union of India. The assessment years are not specified. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is not detailed, other than the filing of the petition itself.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amendment brought to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid? (Question of law) The petitioner, through their counsel, and the respondents, through their counsel, jointly submitted that the issue raised in the writ petition has been decided by the Apex Court. They specifically referred to Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 (Union of India Vs Ashish Agarwal). The petitioner's contention, as implied by the joint submission, is that the Apex Court's decision would govern the present case. The revenue's contention, also implied by the joint submission, is that the Apex Court's decision on the validity of the amendment to Section 148 is binding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

--1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI) ON THE 22nd OF JUNE, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 15804 of 2021 Between:- M/S PORWAL AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED THR. DIRECTOR MR. SHAILESH JAIN 6 MURAI MOHALLA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER . YATISH KUMAR LAAD, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .) AND 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 (1) INDORE AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPP WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPP. WHITE CHOURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. UNION OF INDIA THR. THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI. (DELHI) .....RESPONDENTS (VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT . VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-3].) This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE VIVEK --2-- RUSIA passed the following: ORDER Counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondents, both have jointly and fairly submitted that the issue raised in these writ petitions has been put to rest by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 (Union of India Vs Ashish Agarwal). The validity of the amendment brought in Section 148 of Income Tax Act has been upheld by the Apex Court. In view of the above, these writ petitions are hereby disposed of in terms of the orders and directions issued in the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 (supra) and connected appeals. (VIVEK RUSIA ) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)) JUDGE

JUDGE N.R. Digitally signed by NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Date: 2022.07.07 18:07:41 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →