Convenient Hospitals Limited Through Rajesh Bhargava vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission

WP/2351/2017HC Madhya Pradesh12 April 2017Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C.SHARMA2 pages

For Petitioner: Manoj MunshiFor Respondent: Veena Mandlik

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided that the Settlement Commissioner should be directed to decide the petitioner's application dated May 28, 2015. The reasoning was based on the agreement between the parties, where the revenue did not object to such a direction. The court explicitly stated that it was not averting to the merits of the case. The operative direction was to the respondent No.1 (Income Tax Settlement Commission) to decide the petitioner's application within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. No issue was left undecided, as the court's focus was solely on directing the Settlement Commissioner to act on the pending application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Manoj Munshi, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Settlement Commissioner to decide his representation/application dated May 28, 2015. This application was filed subsequent to an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner on May 15, 2015, and sought rectification of that order. The respondent Income Tax Department, through its counsel Ms. Veena Mandlik, agreed to the petition being disposed of with a direction to the Settlement Commission to decide the petitioner's application in accordance with law. The High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Settlement Commissioner should be directed to decide the petitioner's application dated May 28, 2015, seeking rectification of the order dated May 15, 2015? (Question of procedure/mandamus) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the Settlement Commissioner had not decided his application dated May 28, 2015, and sought a direction for its decision. Revenue's Contention: The respondent Income Tax Department agreed that the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction to the Settlement Commissioner to decide the petitioner's application in accordance with law.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 - WP No.2351/2017 12-04-2017

Mr Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondents State. The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Settlement Commissioner to decide the petitioner's representation/application dated 28-05-2015 (Annexure-P-2). The facts of the case reveal that the order was passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 15-05-2015 and thereafter the petitioner has preferred an application on 28-05-2015 seeking some rectification in respect of the order dated 15-05-2015. Ms Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondents Income Tax Department has stated before this court that the present writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1, the Income Tax Settlement Commission to decide the petitioner's application, in accordance with law. Resultantly, without averting to the merits of the case, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner's application dated 28-05-2015, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules.

(S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) J U D G E Rashmi

- 2 -

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →