M/S ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS 2, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3679/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01022474202420 March 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court considered the submissions and, taking into account the notification and Instruction No. 1914 issued under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act read with OM [F. No.404/72/93-ITCC], directed the first Appellate Authority, CIT (Appeals), to decide the appeal within three months. The Court ordered that the appeal be decided without insisting on the recovery of the demand. Until the pendency of the appeal, the demand was deemed to be stayed, and no pre-deposits were to be collected. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly. The Court did not explicitly decide the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the jurisdiction or the rejection of the pre-deposit exemption, but rather directed the expeditious disposal of the appeal by the CIT (Appeals) with a stay on demand.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their request for exemption from pre-deposit by an authority. The petitioner argued that the basis for imposing the liability was without jurisdiction and that relevant documents submitted along with their submissions were ignored. The respondents, Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2, Chandigarh and others, accepted notice. The respondents stated that since the matter was pending before the CIT (appeal), the CIT (appeal) could be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously without pressing for the pre-deposit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the authority wrongfully rejected the petitioner's request for exemption from pre-deposit, considering the documents placed on record by the petitioner? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the basis of imposing the liability on the petitioner was without jurisdiction, as challenged by the petitioner in their appeal? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The authority wrongfully rejected the request for exemption from pre-deposit and ignored documents submitted by the petitioner. The basis for imposing the liability was without jurisdiction. Revenue's Contentions: Since the matter was pending before the CIT (appeal), the CIT (appeal) may be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously without pressing for the pre-deposit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2024:PHHC:040182-DB

[117] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-3679-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.03.2024

M/s Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd.

…Petitioner

Versus

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2, Chandigarh and others

….Respondents

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present : Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

[1]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that authority has wrongfully rejected their request for exemption from pre-deposit and had placed on record documents along with their submissions which have been ignored. [2]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis of imposing the liability of the petitioner, is without jurisdiction which he challenged in the appeal. [3]

Notice of motion. [4]

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Manisha, Advocate accept notice on behalf of the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department and it is fairly stated by them that since the matter is already pending before the CIT (appeal), the CIT (appeal) may be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously itself without pressing for the pre- deposit. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.03.20 23:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2024:PHHC:040182-DB CWP-3679-2024 (O&M)

-2-

[5]

We have considered the submission. [6]

Taking into consideration the notification, Instruction No.1914 issued under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act as read with OM [F. No.404/72/93-ITCC], we deem it appropriate to direct the first Appellate Authority CIT (appeals) to decide the appeal within a period of three months, without insisting on the recovery of the demand. Till the pendency of the appeal, the demand shall be deemed to be stayed without depositing the pre-deposits 20%. [7]

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)

JUDGE

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE

20.03.

2024 ‘R. Sharma'

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable

: Yes/No

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.03.20 23:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 220

All 519 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →