HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COPOPRATION LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PKL

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25472/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01090116201505 December 2015Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. After some arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted this permission with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the appropriate authority, incorporating the grievance raised in the present writ petition. The court noted that it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to remedies available in accordance with law. No specific finding was given on the legality of the rejection letter or the merits of keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition sought to quash a letter dated 30.10.2015, which rejected the petitioner's request to keep penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in abeyance. This request was made pending the disposal of an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 253 of the Act. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, should quash the letter dated 30.10.2015 rejecting the petitioner's prayer to keep penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in abeyance pending the disposal of its appeal before the ITAT. The petitioner argued that the penalty proceedings should be stayed until the outcome of their appeal before the ITAT. The revenue's position, as indicated by the rejection letter, was that the prayer for abeyance was not granted. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the provided text for either side's arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(C),Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 25472 of 2015 Decided on : 05.12.2015 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited . . . Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned letter dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure P-7) rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for keeping the penalty proceedings, under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'), in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal under Section 253 of the Act, which has been preferred by the petitioner before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'ITAT').

2.

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition

3.

Dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to it in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) December 05, 2015 JUDGE J.Ram

JAWALA RAM 2015.12.07 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 271(1)(C)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(C) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →