COMMITTEE-GOLDEN FOREST INDIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17713/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086535201708 January 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER,MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the issues raised in the present writ petition were substantively similar to those being debated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and considering the orders passed by the Supreme Court protecting the petitioner's rights and restraining coercive action, the present petition need not be kept alive. The Court disposed of the petition, leaving the parties to their remedies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The High Court also clarified that the petitioner's remedy against assessment orders, in accordance with the law, would remain available. No specific issue was left undecided; the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds related to parallel proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Committee-Golden Forest India Ltd., filed a Civil Writ Petition (CWP) No. 17713 of 2017 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The petition raised substantive issues that were also under debate before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had passed certain orders protecting the petitioner's rights and restraining the respondents from taking coercive action. The High Court noted that the issues in the present petition were substantively similar to those being agitated in the Supreme Court proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present writ petition should be kept alive given that the substantive issues are being debated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has also passed protective orders for the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argued that the writ petition should be decided on its merits or appropriately addressed, but acknowledged the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings. The petitioner's counsel appeared before the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel also appeared before the High Court. The judgment does not explicitly record specific arguments made by the revenue, but their presence indicates their engagement with the proceedings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP no. 17713 of 2017 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP no. 17713 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.01.2019 Committee- Golden Forest India Ltd. ....Petitioner(s) Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER HON'BLE MR JUSTICE LALIT BATRA Present : Mr.Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for respondents MAHESH GROVER, J.(ORAL) It is stated before us that the issue which has been raised substantively in the present petition is being debated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where certain orders have been passed protecting the right of the petitioner and restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against him.

We are of the opinion that since the issues raised in the present petition are substantively similar and the petitioner and the respondents would have right to agitate their grievance in those proceedings, the present petition, therefore, need not be kept alive and the same is disposed of, leaving the parties to their remedies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Needless to say that the petitioner's remedy against the REKHA SIHAG 2019.01.09 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CWP no. 17713 of 2017 (O&M) 2 assessment orders in accordance with the law would be available to him. (Mahesh Grover)

Judge 08.01.2019

(Lalit Batra) rekha Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No REKHA SIHAG 2019.01.09 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →