SANTKRUPA COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1)(1) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/6535/2024HC BombayHCBM01018911202406 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court held that the present writ petition is covered by its previous judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Vodafone Idea Limited. Consequently, all notices and orders impugned in the petition were quashed and set aside. This included any consequential notices, assessment orders, and other consequential orders. The court did not provide specific reasoning beyond stating that the petition was covered by the precedents. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is squarely covered by a binding precedent of the same court, the impugned actions will be set aside. The operative direction was to quash and set aside all impugned notices and orders, and the petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Santkrupa Coop Housing Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court concerning Assessment Year 2018-19. The petition challenged certain notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1)(1) and other respondents. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Kale, contended that the issue in the present petition would be covered by two previous judgments of the same court: Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Vodafone Idea Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The revenue's counsel, Mr. Gupta, agreed with this submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present writ petition is covered by the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2) & Ors. and Vodafone Idea Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. (mixed question of law and fact, concerning the applicability of precedent). Assessee's Contention: The issue in the present petition is covered by the aforementioned judgments of the Bombay High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel agreed that the issue is covered by the cited judgments.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/1 421--wp-6535-24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6535 OF 2024 Santkrupa Coop Housing Society Ltd ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1)(1) And Ors ...Respondents ---- Mr. Kumar Kale for Petitioner. Mr. Arjun Gupta for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 6th MAY 2024 P.C. : 1 This petition relates to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 Mr. Kale states the issue in this petition will be covered by the judgments of this court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2) & Ors.1 and Vodafone Idea Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.2 Mr. Gupta agrees. 3 In the circumstances, since the petition is covered by both Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) as well as Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra), all notices and orders impugned in this petition are quashed and set aside. All consequential notices, assessment order and the consequential orders, if any, are also hereby quashed and set aside. 4 Petition disposed. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) 1 Judgment pronounced on 3rd May 2024 in Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023 2 Writ Petition No.2768 of 2022 dated 6th February 2024 Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2024.05.07 15:32:24 +0530

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →