STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9291/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01036226200104 February 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petitions were covered by the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors, decided on 25.11.2002. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of in the same terms as the Supreme Court's judgment. The petitioner was granted permission to file objections, as per law, against the reasons supplied to them. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to file objections, implying that the notices themselves were subject to challenge based on the Supreme Court's precedent. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was resolved by applying the Supreme Court's ruling.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, State Bank of Patiala, filed three writ petitions (CWP-9291-2001, CWP-9293-2001, and CWP-9292-2001) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. These petitions challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 29, 2001, by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Patiala, and all consequential proceedings. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of these notices issued under Section 147(1) of the Act. The High Court noted that the matter was covered by a Supreme Court decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.3.2001, by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Patiala, and consequential proceedings are valid, turning on the interpretation of Section 147(1) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the notices were invalid. The revenue's contentions were not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the High Court observed that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors. The judgment does not detail specific arguments or reliance on authorities by either party beyond this overarching observation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-9291-2001 (O&M) 1 CWP-9293-2001 (O&M) and CWP-9292-2001 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 4.2.2020 CWP-9291-2001 (O&M) State Bank of Patiala

...... Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another ...... Respondents CWP-9293-2001 (O&M) State Bank of Patiala

...... Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another ...... Respondents CWP-9292-2001 (O&M) State Bank of Patiala

...... Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN *** Present : Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sutaksh Saini, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing counsel and Mr. Vishal Gupta, Inspector (High Court Cell) Office of Principal, CCIT, NWR, Chandigarh *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)

1.

Vide this common order we shall dispose of above said three writ petitions as the common question of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP- 9291-2001. ANURADHA 2020.02.07 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9291-2001 (O&M) 2 CWP-9293-2001 (O&M) and CWP-9292-2001 (O&M)

2.

This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an direction especially in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') dated 29.3.2001 Annexure P-4 Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No ANURADHA 2020.02.07 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →