PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S S.R. FERRO ALLOYS

PDF · subscribers
WP/4589/2015HC Madhya PradeshMPHC01014448201514 May 20152 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court found that the assessee had filed an interlocutory application (I.A.No.2010/2015) much before the impugned order of March 4, 2015, seeking withdrawal of the writ petition to prosecute the matter before the Settlement Commission. Although the order on this application could not be passed until April 13, 2015, the Court saw no reason to interfere with the Settlement Commission's order merely because the writ petition was pending. On April 13, 2015, the department had sought time to raise objections to the withdrawal application, and after considering all objections, the application for withdrawal was allowed, permitting the assessee to prosecute the matter before the Settlement Commission. Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, it was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 4, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai. The Settlement Commission had declared an application filed by M/s S.R. Ferro Alloys (the respondent) as technically valid under Section 245C and decided to proceed with it. The department contended that this action was unsustainable because, on the date of the Settlement Commission's order, two parallel proceedings were pending: one before the Settlement Commission and another before the High Court in W.P.No.8898/2013. The High Court petition was only disposed of as withdrawn on April 13, 2015. The department argued that the Settlement Commission's action was improper, especially since a valuer's report had been deemed unproved and was directed not to be considered by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Settlement Commission's order dated March 4, 2015, holding the application filed by the respondent as technically valid under Section 245C and deciding to proceed with it, was sustainable in light of a parallel proceeding pending before the High Court in W.P.No.8898/2013. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (M/s S.R. Ferro Alloys) in this writ petition. However, it notes that the assessee had filed an interlocutory application (I.A.No.2010/2015) before the High Court much before the impugned order, seeking withdrawal of the writ petition to prosecute the matter before the Settlement Commission. Revenue's Contentions: The petitioner (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) contended that the Settlement Commission's action was unsustainable because a parallel proceeding was pending before the High Court. They argued that the Settlement Commission's decision to proceed with the application was improper, particularly as a valuer's report had been found unproved and was directed not to be considered by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 245C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP-4589-2015 (PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) Vs M/S S.R. FERRO ALLOYS) 14-05-2015 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 on advance notice. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution has been has been filed by the department against an order dated 4.3.2015 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai holding an application filed by Respondent No.1 as technically valid under Section 245C and taking note of a decision to proceed with the application. It is said that this action of the settlement commission is unsustainable as on the date when the order dated 4.3.2015 was passed, two parallel proceedings in the matter were pending; one before the Settlement Commission and another before this Court in W.P.No.8898/2013, which was only disposed of as withdrawn on 13.4.2015. During the course of hearing, the submission made by learned counsel was that once the matter was subjudice before the Court and when the report of the valuer namely, M/s Pilliawar & Associates was found to be unproved and it was directed that it shall not be considered by the Income Tax Assessing Officer, the action of the settlement commission in holding the application to be valid and directing it to be proceeded with is not proper. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that much before the order was passed on 13.4.2015 in W.P.No.8898/2013, the interlocutory application was filed pointing out the fact with regard to filing of the application before the settlement commission and the prayer was made for withdrawal of the writ petition to prosecute the matter before the settlement commission. Merely because the matter was pending before this Court in the writ petition, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. The petitioner much before the impugned order passed on 4.3.2015 had filed I.A.No.2010/2015 and had made prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to prosecute the matter before the settlement commission and the orders on the application could not be passed before 13.4.2015. As time was sought for by the department for seeking objection to the same and after considering all the objections, the application for withdrawal was allowed on 13.4.2015 and when the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to prosecute the matter before the settlement commission, we see no reason to interfere into the matter on such consideration. Accordingly, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE (MOOL CHAND GARG) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 245C

All 132 judgments and leading authorities on Section 245C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →