M/S Ujjain Dugdh Sangh Sahkari Maryadit Navlakhi Maksi Road Ujjain Thr. Bhuvnesh Kumar Sahu S/O Shri vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2(1)

PDF · subscribers
WP/5603/2020HC Madhya Pradesh02 March 2020Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C.SHARMA2 pages
For Petitioner: Anand PrabhawalkarFor Respondent: Veena Mandlik
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Department to pass an appropriate order. The order should keep in view the amount already recovered and the outstanding amount against the petitioner. The Commissioner was directed to decide the petitioner's applications within a period of 3 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, taking into account CBDT Circulars dated 29/2/2016 and 31/7/2017. The Court did not decide the merits of the freezing of bank accounts but directed a prompt decision on the pending applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Ujjain Dugdh Sangh Sahkari Maryadit, a cooperative society, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. The petition was against a notice dated 27/2/2020 issued by the DCIT/ACIT, 2(1), Ujjain, concerning the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner's appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and they were required to deposit 20% of the outstanding demand. The petitioner contended that 20% of the outstanding demand had already been recovered by the Department, and freezing other bank accounts would serve no purpose. Applications were filed on 10/2/2020 and 28/2/2020 to this effect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts is justified when 20% of the outstanding demand has already been recovered. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that since 20% of the outstanding demand has already been recovered, there is no purpose in freezing other bank accounts. They relied on applications filed on 10/2/2020 and 28/2/2020 to inform the Commissioner of Income Tax about this recovery. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent Department fairly stated before the Court that some breathing time be granted to the Department to decide the applications preferred in the matter.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W P No. 5603 / 2020 M/S. UJJAIN DUGDH SANGH SAHKARI MARYADIT VS. ASSTT. COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX – 2(1), UJJAIN --- 1 --- INDORE, Dated : 02/03/2020 Mr. P. M. Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Anand Prabhawalkar and Ms. Rashi Gohil, Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent – Department. The petitioner before this Court, M/s. Ujjain Dugdh Sangh Sahkari Maryadit Navlakhi, Maksi Road, Ujjain, a cooperative society, registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the notice dated 27/2/2020 issued by the DCIT / ACIT, 2(1) Ujjain, in respect of Bank Accounts of the petitioner. The undisputed facts of the case reveals that the petitioner's appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the petitioner was required to deposit 20% of the outstanding amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the Income Tax Department has already recovered 20% of the outstanding demand and no purpose is going to be served by freezing other bank accounts. It has been stated that applications were preferred on 10/2/2020 and 28/2/2020 informing the Commissioner of Income Tax that 20% of the outstanding demand has already been recovered by the Department and, therefore, the other bank HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W P No. 5603 / 2020 M/S. UJJAIN DUGDH SANGH SAHKARI MARYADIT VS. ASSTT. COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX – 2(1), UJJAIN --- 2 --- accounts may not be freezed. Learned counsel for the respondent Department has fairly stated before this Court that some breathing time be granted to the Department to decide the applications preferred in the matter. Resultantly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Department to pass appropriate order keeping in view the amount already recovered and the outstanding amount which is outstanding against the petitioner. The Commissioner shall decide the aforesaid applications by taking into account the CBDT Circular dated 29/2/2016 and 31/7/2017 within a period of 3 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of. Certified copy, TODAY. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) J U D G E KR Digitally signed by Kamal Rathor Date: 2020.03.02 11:28:04 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →