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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31488/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01159533202422 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the respondents (revenue) to consider and examine the objections raised by the petitioner. The respondents were directed to pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. The Court took into consideration the stand taken by the revenue, which agreed to a direction for timely disposal of objections. The specific issue of limitation regarding the notice under Section 148A(b) was not decided on merits, but the process of examining the objections was expedited. The operative direction was to consider and decide the objections within a stipulated timeframe.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nectar Lifesciences Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that this notice was barred by limitation, citing the proviso to Section 153-C of the IT Act, which they argued should be considered in light of the amendment to Section 149 proviso. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, stated that objections were raised on November 11, 2024, and they had no objection to a direction being issued for the timely disposal of these objections.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation, considering the proviso to Section 153-C of the IT Act and the amendment to Section 149 proviso? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) is time-barred. They relied on the proviso to Section 153-C of the IT Act, asserting that its consideration, in conjunction with the amendment to Section 149 proviso, renders the notice invalid due to exceeding the prescribed time limits. Revenue's Contention: The revenue stated that objections were raised on November 11, 2024, and did not oppose a direction for the timely disposal of these objections. The revenue did not explicitly argue on the merits of the limitation issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 149,Section 153-C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-31488-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 CWP-31488-2024 Decided on : 22.11.2024 Nectar Lifesciences Ltd. . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and others . . . 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) 1. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘IT Act’), is barred by limitation, as she submits that as per the proviso to Section 153-C of the IT Act, which is required to be taken into consideration in view of the amendment under Section 149 proviso, the notice would be time barred. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents – revenue, submits that the objections have been raised only on 11th November 2024, and the revenue would have no objection if the direction is issued to decide the objections within a time-frame. 3. Taking into consideration the stand taken by the revenue, we JAWALA RAM 2024.11.26 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-31488-2024 - 2 - dispose of this writ petition with direction to the respondents to consider and examine the objections raised by the petitioner and pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably, within a period of eight weeks. 4. 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

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →