AAKASH ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, SANJAY CHANDANMAL JAIN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers

WP/5822/2023HC BombayHCBM01019319202303 April 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues in all the writ petitions were covered by two previous reasoned orders of the Court in Rajendra Lilachand Sanghavi v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune and Ors. and Panacea Unique Star Developers v. Union of India. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petitions with specific directions. The revenue was directed to act in furtherance of the declarations made by the petitioners under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS) read with the IDS Rules and issue Form 4 under the IDS within four weeks from the date of the order. This was to be done after giving credit for all amounts paid, including advance tax and self-assessment tax. Furthermore, the Court quashed and set aside the assessment orders, demand notices, and penalty notices that were passed in consequence of the IDS declarations. The ratio decidendi is that where the High Court has already ruled on the specific issue concerning the implementation of the IDS and the consequential actions of the revenue, subsequent petitions raising the same issue are to be decided in line with the established precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioners in these four writ petitions (WP Nos. 11894/2022, 1367/2023, 5822/2023, and 4903/2024) are assessees who made declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS). They are challenging various actions by the revenue authorities. The petitions were heard by the Bombay High Court. The revenue authorities were represented by Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani and Mr. Suresh Kumar. The petitioners' counsel, Mr. Jetly, Mr. Sham Walve, and Mr. Sanket Bora, stated that the issues in these petitions are covered by previous reasoned orders of the Court in Rajendra Lilachand Sanghavi v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune and Ors. and Panacea Unique Star Developers v. Union of India. The revenue counsel concurred with this submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents-revenue are bound to act in furtherance of the declarations made by the petitioners under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS) read with the IDS Rules and issue Form 4 under the IDS, giving credit for all amounts paid, including advance tax and self-assessment tax, within a specified period. 2. Whether the assessment orders, demand notices, and penalty notices issued in consequence of the IDS declarations should be quashed and set aside. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioners argued that their cases are covered by prior judgments of the Bombay High Court in Rajendra Lilachand Sanghavi and Panacea Unique Star Developers. They contended that the revenue should be directed to issue Form 4 under the IDS and quash the consequential assessment and demand notices. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents-revenue, through their counsel Mr. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Khanchandani, concurred with the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel, agreeing that the issues are covered by the aforementioned High Court judgments.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (4 matters)

WP 11894/2022

WP 5822/2023

WP 4903/2024

WP 1367/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1/3 909-aswp-11894-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11894 OF 2022 M/s. Shri Anand Venkateshwar Associates …Petitioner Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance Dept. and Anr. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1367 OF 2023 Anil Vasant Pisal …Petitioner Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistan Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer and Ors. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5822 OF 2023 Aakash Erectors Private Limited Through its Director, Sanjay Chandanmal Jain …Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward 8(1), Pune …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4903 OF 2024 Madhukar Balwant Waghmare ...Petititioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Pune & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Sanket Bora, with Vidhi Punmiya, i/by SPCM Legal, for Petitioners in WP 11894/2022 and WP 5822/2023. Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sham Walve, Sanket Bora and Vidhi Punmiya i/by SPCM Legal for Petitioner in WP 4903/2024. Mr. Sham Walve, with Mr. Siddharth Wakankar, for Petitioner in WP 1367/2023. Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for Respondents-Revenue in WP Shivgan SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.04.04 15:18:56 +0530

2/3 909-aswp-11894-2022.doc 1367/2023 and WP 4903/2024. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue in WP 11894/2022 and WP 5822/2023. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 3rd April, 2024 PC:-

At the outset, Mr. Khanchandani undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondents-Revenue in Writ Petition No.1367 of 2023 and Writ Petition No.4903 of 2024 in place of Mr. Manwani. Undertaking accepted. Registry to take the vakalatnama on file.

Mr. Jetley, Mr. Sham Walve and Mr. Sanket Bora state that the issue in these Petitions is covered by two reasoned orders passed by this Court in Rajendra Lilachand Sanghavi v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune and Ors.1 and in Panacea Unique Star Developers v. Union of India2. Mr. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Khanchandani appearing for the Respondents-Revenue concur.

Therefore, Petitions are disposed with the following directions: (a) Respondents to act in furtherance of the declaration made by Petitioners under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (“IDS”) read with IDS Rules and issue Form 4 under the IDS within four weeks from today after giving credit to all 1 Writ Petition No.5134 of 2022 dtd. 7th March 2024. 2 Writ Petition No.7026 of 2023 dtd. 11th March 2024. Shivgan

3/3 909-aswp-11894-2022.doc amounts paid including the advance tax and self assessment tax, as the case may be. (b) Consequently, the assessment orders passed together with the demand notice and penalty notice issued are also quashed and set aside.

Petitions disposed.

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shivgan

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →