ASHOKKUMAR FOJAJI MALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1) SURAT

PDF · subscribers
SCA/11166/2020HC GujaratGJHC24033890202011 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Surat, to consider the application filed by the writ applicant on March 12, 2020, seeking a stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Principal Commissioner was instructed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within 15 days from the date of receiving the writ of the High Court's order. The High Court disposed of the writ application with this direction. No specific finding was made on the merits of the stay application itself, only on the procedural delay.

What were the facts?

The writ applicant, Ashokkumar Fojaji Mali, filed an application on March 12, 2020, to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Surat, seeking a stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The applicant's counsel argued that despite the application being filed in March, no decision had been taken by the Principal Commissioner as of the date of the hearing. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1) Surat is the respondent. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The matter is before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the pending application for stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The learned counsel for the writ applicant submitted that his application for stay of demand, filed in March 2020, had not been decided by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax till the date of the hearing. Revenue's contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/SCA/11166/2020 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11166 of 2020 ========================================================== ASHOKKUMAR FOJAJI MALI Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1) SURAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 11/09/2020

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

1.

We have heard Mr. Hardik Vora, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant.

2.

We take notice of the fact that the writ applicant has preferred an application dated 12.3.2020 addressed to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Surat, seeking stay of the demand under Section 220(6) of the Act. Mr. Vora would submit that although his application is of the month of March, yet till this date, the Principal Commissioner has not taken any decision. We dispose of this application with the direction to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Surat to take up the C/SCA/11166/2020 ORDER application filed by the writ applicant dated 12-3-2020 and pass appropriate order in accordance with the law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the writ of this order.

3.

With the above, this writ application stands disposed of. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) RADHAN/DRASHTI K. SHUKLA

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →