VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/15134/2017HC RajasthanRJHC02108019201722 September 2017Author: K. S. JHAVERI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the ITAT Regular Bench, where the petitioner's appeal is pending, to decide the appeal within a period of 10 working days from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order. The Court also stated that an appropriate date should be fixed for early listing of the appeal before the ITAT. Furthermore, in view of the petitioner's submission that the issue is covered by the High Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited., the petitioner is free to move afresh an application for extension of the stay order before the ITAT, and the ITAT should pass an appropriate order thereon. The petition and the application were disposed of accordingly. The specific finding on the merits of the appeal before the ITAT was not decided by the High Court.

What were the facts?

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging an order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench. The ITAT had rejected Vodafone's application to extend a stay order related to an appeal filed under Section 210 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This appeal was against an order dated 09.12.2014 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, Jaipur, concerning a demand for Assessment Year 2012-13. Vodafone contended that the issue before the ITAT was covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. The Income Tax Officer (respondent) suggested that Vodafone should seek disposal of its appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal pending before the ITAT should be decided expeditiously, considering the petitioner's contention that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. (Question of mixed law and fact, relating to procedural fairness and application of precedent). Assessee's Contention: The issue before the ITAT is fully covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. and other connected cases, including the petitioner's own case. Therefore, the petition should be allowed and disposed of in terms of that judgment. Revenue's Contention: The petitioner-Company should seek disposal of its appeal pending before the ITAT, if so advised, in terms of the judgment of the D.B. of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited., instead of invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 210

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15134/2017 Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Having Its Circle Office At 5th Floor, Gaurav Tower, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and Having Its Registered Office At Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharastra, India-400013, Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ronak Kumavat, Head-Legal & Nodal Department S/o Mr. Chelaram Kumavat, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Plot No. 6, Ayuwansingh Nagar, Maharani Fam, Durgapura, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, TDS-2, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana with Mr. Atul Saxena. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

Order 22/09/2017 The matter comes up on an application (55695/2017) with a prayer that this petition be disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.200/2016 decided on 11.07.2017. The petitioner-applicant-Company has laid this petition, aggrieved of the impugned order dated 30.05.2017 whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, at Jaipur (hereinafter ‘ITAT’) rejected its application to extend the stay order in the appeal filed under Section 210 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III Jaipur’s

(2 of 3) [CW-15134/2017] order dated 09.12.2014 in respect of a demand relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. It has been submitted that the issue pending adjudication before the ITAT in respect of which the application for extension of stay order has been dismissed is fully covered to the petitioner assessee’s benefit by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. (supra) and other connected cases including that of the petitioner company itself i.e. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.1/2014 titled M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (VSML) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward TDS-2, Jaipur. Counsel submitted that the petition be accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. (supra). Mr. Nikhil Simlote appearing for the respondent-Income Tax Officer submitted that the petitioner-Company should seek disposal of its appeal pending before the ITAT, if so advised, in terms of the judgment of the D.B. of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. (supra). instead of invoking this Court’s juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heard. Considered. I am of the view that in the facts of the case it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the ITAT Regular Bench where the appeal of the petitioner-Company is stated to be pending to decide the petitioner-Company’s appeal, within a period of 10 working days from the date of presentation

(3 of 3) [CW-15134/2017] of a certified copy of this order. For this purpose an appropriate date be fixed on the petitioner-Company’s application for early listing of the pending before the ITAT. Further in view of the petitioner’s case that the issue before the ITAT is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. (supra) it would also be free to move afresh an application for extension of stay order before the ITAT. Appropriate order thereon be passed. This petition as also the application (55695/2017) stand disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SHARMA) J. Himanshu/11.

More judgments on Section 210

All 88 judgments and leading authorities on Section 210 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →