PADMAVATI DEVI STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED DIRECTOR, DEEPAK AMBADAS NAGARGOJE vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
WP/9050/2023HC BombayHCBM01019768202313 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the nature of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the petitioner's contention that relevant decisions were not considered, found that a reconsideration of the impugned order was necessary. The Court permitted the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the PCIT (Central), Pune, praying for appropriate orders and raising the contentions that the decisions in Pr. CIT Vs. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and PCIT Vs. Mohmmad Haji Adam & Co. should have been considered. The Learned PCIT (Central), Pune, was directed to look into these contentions and take an appropriate view, exercising discretion on whether any illegality in the order dated March 16, 2023, was made out. The petitioner was to make the application within one week, and a decision was to be taken within four weeks. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open. The petitioner was also granted liberty to approach the CIT(A) for an early disposal of their appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Padmavati Devi Steels Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging orders dated February 24, 2023, March 16, 2023, and March 23, 2023, passed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1(2), Pune, and Respondent No. 2 for Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and consequential notices, and also prayed for directions to the respondents to consider their submissions and pass reasoned orders. Additionally, they sought a prohibition against coercive action pending the disposal of their appeal before the CIT(A). The petitioner argued that certain decisions were not considered by the Assessing Officer while deciding their stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer failed to consider relevant decisions, namely Pr. CIT Vs. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and PCIT Vs. Mohmmad Haji Adam & Co., while deciding the petitioner's stay application for AY 2021-22, thereby vitiating the impugned orders? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the aforementioned decisions, which they contended were crucial and went to the root of the matter, were placed before the Assessing Officer but were not considered. This failure to consider these precedents led to an improper decision on their stay application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments regarding the non-consideration of precedents. The revenue was represented, but their arguments on this specific issue are not detailed in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

903-WP-9050-2023.DOCX IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9050 OF 2023 Padmavati Devi Steels Private Limited through its Authorised Director, Deepak Ambadas Nagargoje … Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1(2), Pune & 2 Ors. …Respondents Mr. Sham Walve a/w. Mr. Sanket S. Bora and Ms. Vidhi Punmiya i/b SPCM Legal, for Petitioner. Mr. Vipul Bajpayee, for Respondent-Revenue. _______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. Date : August 13, 2024 _______________________ P C : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs : A. to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 24th February 2023 passed by the Respondent No. l, 16th March 2023 and 23rd March 2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2 for AY 2021-22 and other consequential notices and order in pursuance thereof, B. or that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to consider the submissions made by the Petitioner and pass reasoned order; and/or Page 1 of 3 August 13, 2024 SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR Digitally signed by SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR Date: 2024.08.17 16:55:50 +0530

903-WP-9050-2023.DOCX C. that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prohibiting Respondents from taking any steps or coercive action in furtherance of the impugned order dated impugned order dated 24th February 2023 passed by the Respondent No. l, 16th March 2023 and 23rd March 2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2 for AY 2021-22 till the disposal of the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the CIT-A and other consequential notices and order in pursuance thereof; D. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause “C”. 2. After this petition was heard for some time, Mr. Walve, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the petitioner can go back to the PCIT, (Central), Pune by making an application pointing out that the decisions as rendered in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd.

1 and PCIT Vs. Mohmmad Haji Adam & Co.2 were required to be considered by the Assessing Officer in deciding the stay application as made by the petitioner and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the contention of the petitioner, that although the said decisions were placed for consideration of the Assessing Officer, the same were not considered, we are of the opinion that reconsideration of the impugned order is necessary in the light of the decisions which the petitioner contends that the same would go to the root of the matter. We accordingly permit the petitioner to move an appropriate application, before the Learned PCIT (Central), Pune praying for appropriate orders raising such contentions. 1 (2019) Tax Corp (DT) 79209, Order dated 15.07.2019 2 (2019) 104 CCH 391 dated 11.02.2019 Page 2 of 3 August 13, 2024 Shraddha Talekar PS

903-WP-9050-2023.DOCX 4. The Learned PCIT (Central), Pune shall look into such contentions and take an appropriate view of the matter. It would be thus the discretion of the said authority to consider whether any case of illegality of the order dated 16 March, 2023 is made out. 5. The petitioner shall make an application within a period of one week from today. Let an appropriate decision in that regard be taken within four weeks from the date of filing such application. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. 6. Needless to observe that the petitioner is also at liberty to approach the CIT (Appeal) requesting to take up the appeal at an early date and dispose of the same expeditiously. All contentions in that regard are also expressly kept open. 7. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) Page 3 of 3 August 13, 2024 Shraddha Talekar PS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →