BENTELER AUTOMOTIVE (CHINA) INVESTMENT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT) CIRCLE 1, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
WP/10076/2024HC BombayHCBM01031733202418 August 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Court permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition. The reasoning was based on the Petitioner's submission that they had filed a fresh application for Financial Year 2025-26, the rejection of which was being challenged in a separate Writ Petition (No. 11074 of 2025). The Court explicitly stated that the withdrawal of the present petition would have no bearing on the merits or maintainability of the other Writ Petition (No. 11074 of 2025). No specific finding was given on the infructuousness of the original petition, as it was withdrawn before a decision on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Benteler Automotive (China) Investment Ltd., filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated May 30, 2024. The Petitioner sought to set aside this order and sought a mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw it and issue a certificate under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for nil deduction of tax at source for Financial Year 2024-25, as per their application dated May 3, 2024. The revenue contended that the petition had become infructuous due to the efflux of time, as the certificate was for FY 2024-25 and would expire. In response, the Petitioner filed a fresh application for FY 2025-26, which was also rejected. This rejection is challenged in a separate Writ Petition (No. 11074 of 2025).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present Writ Petition has been rendered infructuous due to the efflux of time, rendering any order in favour of the Petitioner for Financial Year 2024-25 of no benefit (Question of law). The revenue argued that the certificate sought was for FY 2024-25, and by the time of the decision, it would have expired, making the petition infructuous. The Petitioner did not explicitly argue against this point but instead filed a fresh application for the subsequent financial year. 2. Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the present Writ Petition in light of a subsequent application and challenge (Procedural issue). The Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition as they had filed a fresh application for FY 2025-26, which was rejected and is now challenged in a separate writ petition (WP No. 11074 of 2025). The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 197

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

sr.1-wp-10076-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10076 OF 2024 Benteler Automotive (China) Investment Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, IT Circle-1, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Ravi Sawana a/w Adv. Neha Sharma (through V.C) i/b Adv. Sriram Sridharan for the Petitioner. Adv. A.K. Saxena for Respondents. Adv. Savita Ganoo a/w Adv. D.P. Singh a/w Adv. Aditya Thakkar for Respondent No. 4/ UOI

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 18, 2025 P. C. 1. The above Writ Petition seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 30th May, 2024. Additionally, a mandamus is sought directing the Respondents to withdraw the impugned order (dated 30th May, 2024) and direct the Respondent to issue a certificate under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for nil deduction of tax at source as prayed for in the Petitioner’s application dated 3rd May, 2024. Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 18, 2025 Mansi shelke TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2025.08.22 11:52:39 +0530

sr.1-wp-10076-2024.doc

2.

This matter was argued for quite a while before us. One of the main arguments canvassed by the revenue was that the present Petition has been rendered infructuous because the certificate sought for by the Petitioner was relating to Financial Year 2024-25, and by the efflux of time, even if we were to pass an order today, the same would be of no benefit to the Petitioner. This is for the simple reason that said certificate would be valid only for Financial Year 2024-25. 3. Because of this objection of the department, the Petitioner filed a fresh application before the income tax department seeking a fresh certificate for Financial Year 2025-26. That application also has been rejected by the department, and which is challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 11074 of 2025. Considering these facts, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the above Writ Petition because the Petitioner has now challenged the said rejection [for Financial Year 2025-26] in Writ Petition No. 11074 of 2025. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts, we permit the Petitioner to withdraw the above Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. We however, make it clear that the withdrawal of the above Writ Petition Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 18, 2025 Mansi shelke

sr.1-wp-10076-2024.doc

shall have no bearing on the merits of the matter in Writ Petition No. 11074 of 2025 or its maintainability, and which is also on board today. 5. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 3 of 3 AUGUST 18, 2025 Mansi shelke

More judgments on Section 197

All 188 judgments and leading authorities on Section 197 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →