NAGARMAL GANPATRAM SHARMA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( OSD )

PDF · subscribers
SCA/10770/2018HC GujaratGJHC24042236201816 July 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the present petition. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the concerned authority. Upon such a representation being made, the authority was directed to consider it on its merits and in accordance with law. The judgment does not decide the substantive issues related to the validity of the Section 179 orders or the petitioner's liability.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nagarmal Ganpatram Sharma, a Director of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Farm Infra Pvt. Ltd., filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These orders were for the recovery of dues from the company. The petitioner contended that he was served a notice prior to the passing of the impugned orders but could not avail the opportunity to present his case. He sought permission to approach the authorities to explain his inability to avail the prior opportunity and to make submissions on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner, as a Director, should be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the concerned authority to explain why he could not avail the opportunity provided earlier and to make submissions on merits regarding the impugned orders passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he received a notice before the impugned orders were passed but was unable to avail the opportunity. He requested permission to withdraw the petition to approach the authorities to explain this situation and to make submissions on the merits of the case. Revenue's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 179

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/SCA/10770/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10770 of 2018 ================================================================ NAGARMAL GANPATRAM SHARMA Versus ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( OSD ) ================================================================ Appearance: MR VINAY SHRAFF WITH MR VISHAL DAVE AND MR NIPUN SINGHVI for MR HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 16/07/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)

1.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner /Director of the original assessee – M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Farm Infra Pvt. Ltd. has challenged the impugned orders under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for recovery of dues of the aforesaid company, of whom the petitioner is the Director.

2.

Learned Advocate Mr.Vinay Shraff appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was served with a notice once before the impugned order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act were passed. It is the case of the petitioner that C/SCA/10770/2018 ORDER however, the petitioner could not avail such an opportunity. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to approach the authorities, who had passed the impugned order/s under Section 179 of the Act, to point out the reasons as to why they could not avail the opportunity provided earlier and also to make the submissions on merits.

3.

In view of the above, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petitions with the aforesaid liberty.

4.

Without expressing anything on merits on the aforesaid, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present petition with the aforesaid liberty. As and when such a representation / representations are made, the same may be considered by the concerned authority, on merits and in accordance with law. (M.R. SHAH, J) (A.Y. KOGJE, J) SHITOLE

More judgments on Section 179

All 36 judgments and leading authorities on Section 179 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →