AMITAVA DAS PURKAYASTHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30583/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01157033202413 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was premature because no order had been passed by the respondent authorities to which a reply had been filed. The Court reasoned that even if an order were to be passed in the future, the petitioner would have the recourse of challenging it before the appropriate appellate forum. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. No specific issue was left undecided, as the dismissal was based on the preliminary ground of prematurity. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amitava Das Purkayastha, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Gurugram, and another. The petitioner contended that no order had been passed by the respondents to which a reply had been filed. The High Court noted that the case was entirely premature and that even if an order were passed, it could be challenged before the appellate forum. The petition was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when no final order has been passed by the respondent authorities, making the matter premature? (Question of law and fact, concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that no order had been passed by the revenue authorities to which a reply had been filed, implying a lack of finality or a situation warranting intervention before the normal appellate process. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Sr. Standing Counsel, implicitly argued that the petition was premature as no adverse order had been passed against the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner should exhaust the available alternative remedies.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 CWP-30583-2024 Decided on : 13.11.2024 Amitava Das Purkayastha

. . . Petitioner(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Gurugram and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Anant Raj Kannojiya, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Utkarsh Khatana, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent(s) – Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Admittedly, no order has been passed to which a reply has been filed. The case is entirely premature. Even if an order is passed, it can be challenged before the Appellate Forum. Dismissed. Misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 13, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.11.19 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →