SHETH SHREE KARSHANDAS HALU DHARAMSHALA JAMNAGAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

PDF · subscribers
SCA/17491/2019HC GujaratGJHC24062531201928 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent, the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), to take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law on the pending Revision Application within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. The Court emphasized that the decision should be made after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee-petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that it had not entered into the merits of the matter and that the Commissioner was at liberty to take an appropriate decision based on the materials on record and in strict accordance with law. The operative direction was to decide the pending revision application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sheth Shree Karshandass Halu Dharamshala Jamnagar, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order or action by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to decide a revision application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 31, 2016. The revision application concerned a demand raised under Section 143(1)(a) of Rs. 19,44,180 and a refund of excess tax paid of Rs. 99,69,883. The petitioner argued that the revision application had been pending for over four and a half years and needed expeditious disposal. The respondent Department assured that the application would be decided within a reasonable time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) to decide the pending revision application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, within a fixed timeframe? (Question of procedure/mandamus, turning on the court's supervisory powers over administrative actions). Assessee's Contentions: The revision application has been pending since March 2016, which is over four and a half years, and therefore, it needs to be decided expeditiously. Revenue's Contentions: Within any reasonable time allowed by the Court, the revision application would be decided by the authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 143(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/SCA/17491/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17491 of 2019 ================================================================ SHETH SHREE KARSHANDAS HALU DHARAMSHALA JAMNAGAR Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ================================================================ Appearance: MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 28/09/2020

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH)

We have heard Shri Hardik V.Vora, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mrs.Mauna M.Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department.

Although the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(a) A Writ of Mandamus or writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to allow the relief claimed and/or pass order against revision application filed u/s 264 on 31.03.2016; delete the consequential demand raised u/s 143(1)(a) of Rs.19,44,180/- and allow the refund of excess tax paid of Rs.99,69,883/-; (b) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and more appropirate in order to grant interim relief to the Petitioner; C/SCA/17491/2019 ORDER (c) Any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted; (d) To provide for the cost of this petition.” yet, before us the limited relief prayed is for appropriate directions to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) – respondent no.1 to take an appropriate decision on the pending Revision Application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29th March 2016 (Annexure-A to the petition), within a fixed time frame after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The submission is that the said Revision Application is pending since March 2016, i.e. more than four and a half years, and as such, it needs to be decided expeditiously.

On the other hand, Mrs.Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department, submits that within any reasonable time allowed by this Court the said Revision Application would be decided by the authority.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondent to take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law on the pending Revision Application referred to above within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee – petitioner. C/SCA/17491/2019 ORDER

We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the matter and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) is at liberty to take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law on the basis of the materials on record. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ.) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J.) /MOINUDDIN/ A. B. VAGHELA

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →