Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Univercity vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/21193/2013HC Madhya Pradesh08 August 2019Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI2 pages
For Petitioner: Sumit NemaFor Respondent: Asstt.Solicitor General
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 30.10.2013. The Court held that since both parties relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Queen's Educational Society (supra), it was appropriate to quash the order and issue directions to the department. The petitioner was directed to submit a representation to the competent authority within two weeks. The competent authority was then directed to consider and decide this representation within three months, strictly observing the guidelines laid down in the case of Queen's Educational Society (supra). No specific finding was recorded on the merits of the exemption claim itself, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya University, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.10.2013 passed by respondent No. 2. This order rejected the petitioner's application for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the financial year 2011-12 and assessment year 2012-13. The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to follow the guidelines laid down in the Supreme Court judgment of Queen's Educational Society vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The respondent revenue relied on a Division Bench order of the same High Court in People's University vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, which also directed consideration in light of the Queen's Educational Society guidelines.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by respondent No. 2, rejecting the petitioner's application for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed for non-adherence to the guidelines laid down in Queen's Educational Society vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was liable to be quashed as the authorities had not followed the guidelines issued in the case of Queen's Educational Society (supra). Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on a Division Bench order of the High Court in People's University vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, which, in turn, relied on Queen's Educational Society (supra) and directed the department to consider the case afresh in light of those guidelines.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh WP-21193-2013 (MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA UNIVERCITY Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) Jabalpur, Dated : 08-08-2019 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking exemption as per Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the financial year 2011-12 and assessment year 2012-13, this petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment o f Queen's Educational Society vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 255 to contend that the authorities have not followed the guidelines issued in the case of Queen's Educational Society (supra), therefore, the order impugned passed by the authority is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 placed reliance on a Division Bench order of this Court dated 27.7.2016 passed in W.P. No.12193/2015 ( People's University vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Another) relying upon the said judgment of Queen's Educational Society (supra), directing the department to take action accordingly. It is urged, the guidelines as enumerated in the said judgment has been observed by Division Bench and the directions have been issued to the authorities to consider the case afresh in the light of the guidelines issued in Queen's Educational Society (supra). However, the arguments as advanced either by the learned counsel for the petitioner or respondent is based on the judgment of Supreme Court in the Queen's Educational Society (supra), therefore, in our considered opinion, by 1 WP-21193-2013 Digitally signed by PARITOSH KUMAR Date: 13/08/2019 18:55:40 (J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE (SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE quashing the order impugned (Annexure P/6), appropriate direction may be issued to the department to do the needful. In view of the foregoing, the order impugned Annexure P/6 dated 30.10.2013 is hereby quashed. This petition is disposed of with a direction that for the relevant financial/assessment year, the petitioner shall submit a representation within two weeks from today to the competent authority which shall be considered and decided by such authority observing the guidelines issued in the case of Queen's Educational Society (supra) within a period of three months. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. PK

2 WP-21193-2013 Digitally signed by PARITOSH KUMAR Date: 13/08/2019 18:55:40

More judgments on Section 10(23C)(vi)

All 517 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →