M/S Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co.Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax [Tds]

RP/704/2013HC Madhya Pradesh26 August 2013Author: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages

For Petitioner: Sumit NemaFor Respondent: Sanjay Lal [R1]

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided to extend the interim protection granted by the order dated 7.8.2013 until 12.9.2013, as agreed by the parties. This extension was granted because the petitioner had already filed an application seeking intervention, which was fixed for hearing on 10.9.2013. The previous order had directed the ITAT to decide six appeals expeditiously, permitted the petitioner to move intervention and stay applications before the ITAT (to be considered in accordance with law), and provided interim relief for 15 days. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the ITAT was free to decide the matter in accordance with law. The review petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns a review petition filed by Shri Sumit Nema, seeking an extension of time granted by a previous order dated 7.8.2013 in Writ Petition No. 3741/2013. The petitioner had already filed an intervention application before respondent no. 1 (Income Tax Department), with the case scheduled for hearing on 10.9.2013. The petitioner requested the continuation of an interim order until that date. The counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 did not oppose this prayer. The previous order dated 7.8.2013 had directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to decide six appeals filed by respondent no. 2 expeditiously, permitted the petitioner to move intervention and stay applications before the ITAT, and continued an interim arrangement for 15 days. The review petition was disposed of with the interim protection extended until 12.9.2013.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the interim protection granted by the order dated 7.8.2013 should be continued until the hearing of the petitioner's intervention application before respondent no. 1 on 10.9.2013? (Question of mixed law and fact, relating to procedural continuation). Assessee's Contention (Petitioner): The petitioner sought an extension of the interim order granted previously, as their intervention application was scheduled for hearing on 10.9.2013, and requested the continuation of the interim order until then. Revenue's Contention (Respondent No. 1 & 2): The counsel for respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 did not oppose the prayer for extension of the interim order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.No.3741/2013

I.T.A.Nos.67/Jab/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Review Petition No.704/2013 (1) 26.08.2013 Shri Sumit Nema, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Shri K.N.Pethia, Advocate for the respondent no.2. This application is filed seeking extension of time as was granted by order dated 7.8.2013 in W.P.No.3741/2013. It is submitted that the petitioner has already moved an application for intervention before the respondent no.1 and the case has been fixed for 10.9.2013 and till then the interim order issued on 7.8.2013 may be continued. The prayer made by the petitioner is not opposed by Sarvshri Sanjay lal and Pethia, counsel for respondents. By order dated 7.8.2013 following order was passed :- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the CIT (A) has passed an order against the respondent No.2 in respect of assessment and the respondent No.2 has preferred six appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur which are registered as I.T.A.Nos.67/Jab/2013, 68/Jab/2013, 69/Jab/2013, 70/Jab/2013, 72/Jab/2013 and 73/Jab/2013. It is submitted that the petitioner herein may be permitted to move an application before the ITAT seeking intervention in the matter and also an application for stay of the recovery and till then interim order dated 31.7.2013 may be continued. It is also submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be directed to decide the appeals expeditiously. So far as last contention is concerned, Shri Lal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that he has no objection, if the Tribunal is directed to decide the matter expeditiously, but he has opposed the earlier contention of the petitioner on the ground that the matter be left with the discretion of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider aforesaid applications in accordance with law. To this, Shri Nema has no objection. In view of aforesaid, we dispose of this petition finally with following directions:- (i) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur where the appeals bearing Nos. 67/Jab/2013, 68/Jab/2013, 69/Jab/2013, 70/Jab/2013, 72/Jab/2013 and 73/Jab/2013 are pending, is directed Review Petition No.704/2013 (2) to decide the aforesaid appeals expeditiously as far as possible within a period of three months from the date of communication of

this order. (ii) In the appeals, petitioner is permitted to move an application seeking intervention and also an application for staying the recovery in the matter. However, aforesaid applications will be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law. (iii) For a period of 15 days from today, it is directed that interim arrangement made on 31.7.2013, in this petition, shall continue between the petitioner and the respondent No.

For a period of two weeks, it is also directed that the respondent No.2 shall not encash the bank guarantee of the petitioner in respect of the dues which are alleged to be recovered from the petitioner. Till then, status-quo as it exists today shall be maintained. (iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur shall be free to consider and decide the matter in accordance with law.”

As the petitioner has already filed an application seeking intervention in the matter, which has been fixed for hearing for 10.9.2013, the interim protection provided in the aforesaid order is extended till 12.9.2013, as agreed by the parties.

With the aforesaid directions, this review petition is finally disposed of with no order as to cost.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice

Judge HS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →