IMPROVEMENT TRUST THRO K.K. YADAV vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1151/2013HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01071114201319 September 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA,MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of the agreement between the counsel for the parties, disposed of the writ petition. The Tribunal was directed to decide the pending appeal within one month from the date of the order (September 19, 2013). During this one-month period, the revenue was restrained from taking any coercive measures for recovery. However, it was clarified that if the petitioner had already provided any undertaking regarding payment, they would be bound by it. The judgment did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather focused on expediting the appellate process and providing interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Improvement Trust, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking a stay on the operation of a notice of demand issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda, dated March 25, 2009. The assessment years are not specified. The core of the matter is an appeal filed by the petitioner (assessee) that was pending adjudication before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar. The petitioner sought to restrain the revenue from taking coercive recovery steps pending the appeal's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the pending appeal within a fixed period. (Question of procedure/direction) 2. Whether the revenue should be restrained from taking coercive recovery steps pending the decision of the appeal by the Tribunal. (Question of interim relief) Contentions: Assessee (Petitioner): Argued that it would be appropriate to direct the Tribunal to decide the appeal within a fixed period and prayed that pending the appeal's decision, the revenue be restrained from taking any coercive steps for recovery. Revenue (Respondents): Did not record any specific arguments against the directions sought by the petitioner. Counsel for the parties were ad idem that the appeal should be decided within a fixed period.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP No.1151 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No.1151 of 2013. Date of Decision:-19.09.2013. Improvement Trust through Sh. K.K.Yadav. .........Petitioner.

Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda and others .........Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon.

***** Present:- Mr. S.K.Mukhi, Advocate

for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. Rajive Bhalla, J (Oral)

Prayer in the writ petition is to stay operation of the notice of demand issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda dated 25.3.2009 etc.

Counsel for the parties, are ad idem that as the appeal filed by the assessee/petitioner is pending adjudication before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), it would be appropriate to direct that the appeal be decided within a fixed period of time. Counsel for the petitioner prays that pending decision of the appeal before the Tribunal, the revenue may be restrained from taking any Yag Dutt 2013.09.25 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.1151 of 2013 -2- coercive steps to effect recovery.

In view of the agreement between counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal within one month from today. During this period of one month, the revenue shall not take any coercive measures to effect recovery but in case the petitioner has already given any undertaking with respect to payment, the petitioner would be obliged by the same.

(RAJIVE BHALLA)

JUDGE

(DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) September 19, 2013 JUDGE 'Yag Dutt' Yag Dutt 2013.09.25 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →