Ram Kumar Meghani vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeasl)-I Bhopal

WP/2864/2013HC Madhya Pradesh18 March 2013Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KRISHN KUMAR LAHOTI2 pages

For Petitioner: Sanjay Mishra

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application before Respondent No. 1 for the expeditious hearing of the stay application (Annexure P/4 dated 4.1.2013) which was filed in the appeal against the order dated 30.11.2012. If such a prayer was made, Respondent No. 1 was directed to consider and decide the application Annexure P/4 expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of filing. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that Respondent No. 1 should decide the application in accordance with the law. No costs were ordered.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Kumar Meghani, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to set aside an order dated January 17, 2013, passed by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner also sought directions to Respondent No. 1 (Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) not to initiate coercive recovery measures for tax until the pending appeal was decided. Furthermore, the petitioner requested that the appeal be decided within one month. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that an application for staying recovery, dated January 4, 2013, was pending before Respondent No. 1. The counsel for the respondents did not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct Respondent No. 1 to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, specifically concerning the stay application filed by the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their application for staying recovery (Annexure P/4 dated 4.1.2013) was pending before Respondent No. 1 and requested directions for its expeditious decision. The petitioner also sought a direction for Respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal within one month. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not oppose the petitioner's prayer for expeditious decision of the stay application.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 W.P.No2864/2013 Ram Kumar Meghani Commissioner of Income Tax & another

18.3.2013 Shri Sanjay Mishra, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for respondents. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “1. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 17.1.2013 pased by respondent No.2 Annexure P/1. 2. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 not to initiate coercive measure for recovery of tax till the decision of appeal pending before Commissioner of Income Tax appeals. 3. That the respondent no.1 Commissioner of Income Tax appeal Bhopal may be directed to decide the appeal within a period of 1 month 4. Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be granted.” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submits that petitioner's application Annexure P/4 dated 4.1.2013 for staying the recovery is pending before the respondent No.1, who may be directed to decide the application expeditiously. Prayer made by the petitioner is not opposed by Shri Sanjay Lal. In view of aforesaid, this petition is finally disposed of with following directions:- 1. Petitioner may file an application before the respondent No.1 for expeditious hearing of the stay application Annexure P/4 dated 4.1.2013 filed in appeal- Ram Kumar Meghani Vs. ITO, Income Tax Department against the order dated 30.11.2012. 2. If any such prayer is made by the petitioner before the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the application Annexure P/4 expeditiously as far as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of filing such application. 2 W.P.No2864/2013 Ram Kumar Meghani Commissioner of Income Tax & another

18.3.2013 3. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. The respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the application in accordance with law. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)

(M.A.Siddiqui) Judge Judge C.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →