SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
SCA/652/2005HC GujaratGJHC24007745200506 August 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner had obtained a stay of demand for the assessment year 2016-17 until 31.10.2022, as evidenced by a communication dated 6.9.2022 from the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar. In light of this development, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner stated that they did not press the petition at that stage. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition as not pressed. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment or the grounds for the stay, as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Goldstar Power Limited, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Gujarat. The petition sought a direction against the Income Tax authorities to stay the demand for assessment year 2016-17, which arose from an assessment order dated 29.3.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner requested this stay until the disposal of their appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel produced a communication dated 6.9.2022 from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar, indicating that the petitioner had obtained a stay of demand for the assessment year 2016-17.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of the demand for assessment year 2016-17, raised pursuant to an assessment order dated 29.3.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pending the disposal of their appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that a stay of demand was necessary until their appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) was decided. They sought a direction from the High Court to the Income Tax authorities to grant this stay. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. However, the subsequent communication from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax indicates that the revenue had granted a stay of demand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/SCA/17913/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17913 of 2022 ========================================================== GOLDSTAR POWER LIMITED Versus THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE ========================================================== Appearance: MR TUSHAR HEMANI, SR.ADVOCATE, MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH, MR PARIMALSINH PARMAR (3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 13/09/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) By way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for direction against the respondent- Income Tax authorities to stay the demand for the assessment year 2016-17 raised pursuant to the framing of high pitched assessment by order dated 29.3.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 till the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals).

2.

Today when the petition comes up for consideration, learned senior advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms.Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner produced communication dated 6.9.2022 received from the office of the Principal Commissioner of the Income Tax, Jamnagar which C/SCA/17913/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2022 reflects that the petitioner has obtained stay of demand case for assessment year 2016-17 which order is brought under challenge in this petition.

3.

The copy of the said communication is taken on record.

4.

In view of the above communication and the stay obtained till 31.10.2022, learned senior advocate does not press this petition, at this stage.

5.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of as not pressed. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) Manshi

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →