Northern Coal Fields Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

WP/6741/2016HC Madhya Pradesh19 August 2016Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages

For Petitioner: Arun Kumar Shrivastava

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a second appeal had been filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, and that the ITAT had subsequently decided this appeal on June 2, 2016. The ITAT's decision quashed the impugned orders and actions that were under challenge in the writ petition. Consequently, the High Court found no further indulgence necessary. The court stated that the questions of refund and other aspects of the matter were left open to be considered in accordance with law, should the department fail to implement the ITAT's order after the period of limitation. The High Court disposed of the writ petition in light of these subsequent developments, acknowledging the department's right to appeal the ITAT's order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Northern Coal Fields Ltd., challenged the adjustment of a refund for the assessment year 2011-12 and a demand for the assessment year 2012-13, along with an order dated 9/10/15 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. The petitioner raised various grounds in their writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, a second appeal was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai. The ITAT subsequently decided the second appeal on June 2, 2016, quashing the impugned orders and actions that were the subject of the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the adjustment of refund for the assessment year 2011-12 and the demand for the assessment year 2012-13, along with the order dated 9/10/15, were sustainable in law. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order passed and the action taken were unsustainable, referring to various judgments and statutory provisions. The specific grounds and authorities relied upon are not detailed in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue before the High Court regarding the sustainability of the impugned orders and actions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.

6741

2016 Northern Coal Fields Ltd.

- V/s -

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others.

Present : Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon; Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Anurag Shrivastava;J ...................................................................................................................... Shri C. S. Agrawal with Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. ...................................................................................................................... O R D E R (19/08/16) Challenge in this petition is made to the adjustment of refund for the year 2011-12 and the demand made for the assessment year 2012-13, so also the order dated 9/10/15 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur in the matter of payment of the amount. 2. Even though, various grounds are raised in the writ petition and Shri C. S. Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel tried to argue by referring to various judgments and statutory provisions that the order passed and the action taken is unsustainable. 3. We find that when the writ petition was filed, a second appeal was also filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and an interim protection was granted to the petitioner on 2/11/15 vide Annexure P-12 and now we are informed that during the pendency of this petition, the Second Appeal has been decided on 2nd June, 2016 by the Tribunal and the impugned orders and action have been quashed. 2 4. That being so, now no further indulgence into the matter is called for. The question of refund and various aspects of the matter are kept open to be considered and decided in accordance with law in case, the department does not implement the order passed by the Tribunal after the period of limitation is over. 5. Accordingly, for the present, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the matter as against the order passed by the Tribunal, the department has a right to appeal and, therefore, in the light of the subsequent developments that have taken place, we dispose of this writ petition. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon) (Anurag Shrivastava) Acting Chief Justice Judge Vy/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →