NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31484/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01159694202422 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the objections raised by the petitioner, including those concerning the statements recorded from other persons and their relation to the petitioner, deserve to be taken into consideration with reference to the provisions of the Income Tax Act by the concerned authority. The Court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and examine the objections raised by the petitioner. The respondents are to pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities must consider all objections raised by an assessee before proceeding further, especially when such objections pertain to the relevance of evidence or the initiation of proceedings. The operative direction is to the respondents to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's objections.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nectar Lifesciences Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petitioner raised objections concerning the initiation of proceedings under the Income Tax Act. Specifically, the petitioner argued that statements recorded from other individuals had no relation to the petitioner. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh, and another. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the specific order or action under challenge, nor does it mention the amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent order by the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the objections raised by the petitioner, particularly regarding the relevance of statements recorded from other persons to the petitioner, deserve consideration under the provisions of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law and fact, concerning the admissibility and relevance of evidence under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that statements recorded from other individuals have no relation to the petitioner and that these objections, along with others raised, should be considered by the concerned authority. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's objections. The revenue was represented by learned standing counsel.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-31484-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CWP-31484-2024 Decided on : 22.11.2024 Nectar Lifesciences Ltd. . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondent(s) – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has raised objections relating to the initiation of the proceedings on the ground that the statements which have been recorded of the other persons, would have no relation to the petitioner. The said objections and the other objections have been raised by the petitioner, deserve to be taken into consideration with reference to the provisions of the Income Tax Act by the concerned authority, and we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with direction to the respondents to consider and examine the objections raised by the petitioner and pass a JAWALA RAM 2024.11.26 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-31484-2024 - 2 - speaking order expeditiously, preferably, within a period of eight weeks. The writ petition stands disposed of. Misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 22, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.11.26 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →