M/S Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co.Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax [Tds]

WP/3741/2013HC Madhya Pradesh07 August 2013Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages

For Petitioner: Sumit NemaFor Respondent: K.N. Pethia, Arun Patel, Samarth Awasthy [2]

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. Firstly, the ITAT, Jabalpur, was directed to decide the six pending appeals (ITA Nos. 67 to 73/Jab/2013) expeditiously, preferably within three months from the communication of the order. Secondly, the petitioner was permitted to move applications before the ITAT for intervention and for staying recovery. The Tribunal was to consider these applications in accordance with law. Thirdly, an interim arrangement was to continue for 15 days from the date of the order, specifically directing respondent No. 2 not to encash the bank guarantee of the petitioner concerning alleged dues, maintaining the status quo. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the ITAT free to decide the matter as per law. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., sought intervention in six appeals filed by respondent No. 2 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jabalpur. These appeals, numbered ITA Nos. 67 to 73/Jab/2013, were filed against an order passed by the CIT(A). The petitioner also requested a stay on recovery proceedings and the continuation of an interim order dated July 31, 2013. Respondent No. 1, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), had no objection to the ITAT deciding the appeals expeditiously but opposed the petitioner's other contentions, suggesting the matter be left to the ITAT's discretion. The petitioner agreed to this.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to intervene in the appeals pending before the ITAT (mixed question of law and fact). 2. Whether the ITAT should be directed to decide the appeals expeditiously (question of law). 3. Whether an interim order for stay of recovery should be granted to the petitioner (question of law). Assessee's contentions (Petitioner): The petitioner sought permission to intervene in the appeals filed by respondent No. 2 before the ITAT and requested a stay on recovery. They also urged the ITAT to decide the appeals expeditiously and sought the continuation of an interim order dated July 31, 2013. Revenue's contentions (Respondent No. 1): The revenue had no objection to the ITAT deciding the appeals expeditiously. However, they opposed the petitioner's other contentions, stating that the matter should be left to the discretion of the ITAT to consider the applications in accordance with law.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.No.3741/2013

I.T.A.Nos.67/Jab/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1 W.P.No.3741/2013 M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Assistant Commissioner of Income Construction Co.Ltd. Tax (TDS) & others

7 .8.2013

Shri Sumit Nema, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri A.P.Shrivastava with Shri K.N.Pethia, Counsel for respondent No.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the CIT (A) has passed an order against the respondent No.2 in respect of assessment and the respondent No.2 has preferred six appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur which are registered as I.T.A.Nos.67/Jab/2013, 68/Jab/2013, 69/Jab/2013, 70/Jab/2013, 72/Jab/2013 and 73/Jab/2013. It is submitted that the petitioner herein may be permitted to move an application before the ITAT seeking intervention in the matter and also an application for stay of the recovery and till then interim order dated 31.7.2013 may be continued. It is also submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be directed to decide the appeals expeditiously. So far as last contention is concerned, Shri Lal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that he has no objection, if the Tribunal is directed to decide the matter expeditiously, but he has opposed the earlier contention of the petitioner on the ground that the matter be left with the discretion of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider aforesaid applications in accordance with law. To this, Shri Nema has no objection. In view of aforesaid, we dispose of this petition finally with following directions:- (i) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur where the appeals bearing Nos. 67/Jab/2013, 68/Jab/2013, 69/Jab/2013, 70/Jab/2013, 72/Jab/2013 and 73/Jab/2013 are pending, is directed to decide the aforesaid appeals expeditiously as far as possible within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 2 W.P.No.3741/2013 M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Assistant Commissioner of Income Construction Co.Ltd. Tax (TDS) & others

7 .8.2013

(ii) In the appeals, petitioner is permitted to move an application seeking intervention and also an application for staying the recovery in the matter. However, aforesaid applications will be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law. (iii) For a period of 15 days from today, it is directed that interim arrangement made on 31.7.2013, in this petition, shall continue between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. For a period of two weeks, it is also directed that the respondent No.2 shall not encash the bank guarantee of the petitioner in respect of the dues which are alleged to be recovered from the petitioner. Till then, status-quo as it exists today shall be maintained. (iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur shall be free to consider and decide the matter in accordance with law. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)

(Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge C.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →