MANMOHAN KAUR vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20002/2020HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01096291202025 November 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 (1), Chandigarh (respondent No.4) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated October 16, 2017, and the legal notice dated October 2, 2020, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the Section 226(3) order *should* be revoked, but rather mandated the authority to address the pending representations. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The principle derived is that administrative authorities must act upon representations and legal notices within a reasonable timeframe, especially when a matter has reached finality at a higher judicial level.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, aged 94, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Her grievance was that an order issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act had not been revoked, despite the department's Special Leave Petition (SLP) being dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 4, 2017. The petitioner had made repeated representations, including one dated October 16, 2017, and a legal notice dated October 2, 2020, to the Income Tax authorities, but no action was taken. The petitioner emphasized her age and need for funds for survival and health, arguing that the order should be de-frozen as a natural consequence of the Supreme Court's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents are legally justified in not revoking the order issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the dismissal of the department's SLP by the Supreme Court. Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court on October 4, 2017, brought the lis to an end in her favour. - She contended that the continued enforcement of the Section 226(3) order was unjustified in light of the final adjudication. - The petitioner highlighted her advanced age and need for funds for daily survival and health issues, implying a need for prompt action. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 Civil Writ Petition No.20002 of 2020 Date of Decision: November 25th, 2020 Manmohan Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. (PROCEEDINGS THROUGH V.C.) AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner, who is 94 years of age, has approached this Court with a grievance that despite the lis having come to an end in her favour with the dismissal of the SLP preferred by the department vide order dated 04.10.2017, till date the order issued under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act has not been revoked. Petitioner has been approaching the respondents time and again for release of the said benefit but till date no action thereon has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the earlier representation dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure P-15) through the counsel addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 (1)- respondent No.

4.

When no action thereon has been taken, the petitioner has been forced to served a representation/legal notice dated 02.10.2020 (Annexure P-16) addressed to respondents No.4 to 6 but that also has not till date been responded to. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner being of old age and needs the money for her survival and for her daily needs including health issues, the respondents cannot, in the light of the orders passed by the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2020.11.25 12:36 I attest to the authenticity and accuracy of this document

CWP No.20002 of 2020 2 various authorities and ultimately the Supreme Court, retain the orders, which have been passed and enforced. It is asserted that the natural consequences of the final adjudication of the matter having been done by the Supreme Court should be for de-freezing the order, which has been passed under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the above factual aspect, a direction is issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 (1), Chandigarh- respondent No.4, to consider and decide the representation dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure P-15) and the legal notice dated 02.10.2020 (Annexure P-16) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of with above directions.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

JUDGE November 25th, 2020 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA) Puneet

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2020.11.25 12:36 I attest to the authenticity and accuracy of this document

More judgments on Section 226(3)

All 95 judgments and leading authorities on Section 226(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →