M/S NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

TCA/824/2016HC Madras22 November 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice S. VAIDYANATHAN4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to dismiss the Tax Case Appeals (T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016) filed by M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited for non-prosecution. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel had previously stated they had no instructions as the appellant was unreachable, and on the day of hearing, there was no representation. The dismissal was granted with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 1222 of 2016) filed by the Department was allowed. The reasoning for allowing the Writ Appeal was directly linked to the dismissal of the Tax Case Appeals for non-prosecution. No costs were awarded. The connected C.M.P.s were closed.

What were the facts?

The appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Madras concerned two Tax Case Appeals (T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016) filed by M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited (the assessee) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 17.02.2016. The respondent in these appeals was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Separately, a Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 1222 of 2016) was filed by the Income Tax Department against an order dated 13.04.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8801 of 2016. The Single Judge had quashed a garnishee order dated 23.02.2016, deeming it issued prematurely before the expiry of the appeal limitation period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tax Case Appeals filed by the assessee should be dismissed for non-prosecution, given the lack of representation and prior indication of no instructions from the appellant's counsel. (Question of procedure/fact) 2. Whether the Writ Appeal filed by the Department should be allowed, considering the Tax Case Appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution. (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: No representation was made for the assessee in the Tax Case Appeals. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, as the appellant in the Writ Appeal, argued for its allowance. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments for the Writ Appeal, but it is implied they sought to overturn the Single Judge's order quashing the garnishee order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016 & W.A. No. 1222 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.11.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016 & W.A. No. 1222 of 2016 & C.M.P. Nos. 18830 & 18831 of 2016 T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016 M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited, MD Chambers, New No. 53, Old No.31, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AAACN9369E ..Appellant in both TCAs Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -4, Chennai – 600 034. ..Respondent in both TCAs Prayer: Tax Case Appeals as against the order dated 17.02.2016 passed in ITA Nos. 2141 & 2142/Mds./2015 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Chennai. 1\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016 & W.A. No. 1222 of 2016 For Appellant :: No Appearance For Respondent :: M/s. Karthik Ranganathan Rajesh Sivanandam W.A. No. 1222 of 2016 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2)(i/c), 121, Aaykar Bhavan, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 2. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2), Room No.433, V Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, No.121, Uthamer Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. ..Appellants Vs. 1. M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited, New No. 53 (Old No.31), Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 2. The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, No.32, R.K. Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 13.04.2016 passed in W.P. No. 8801 of 2016. For Appellants :: Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar for M/s. Hema Muralikrishnan For Respondents :: No appearance 2\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016 & W.A. No. 1222 of 2016 J U D G M E N T S. VAIDYANATHAN,J. AND C. SARAVANAN,J. When the matters were taken up on the previous occasion, learned counsel for the appellant in T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016 submitted that he has no instructions as the appellant is not reachable. Today, there is no representation for the appellant in the tax case appeals. 2. As far as W.A. No. 1222 of 2016 is concerned, the Income Tax Department is on appeal as against the order dated 13.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8801 of 2016 whereby the garnishee order dated 23.02.2016 has been quashed on the ground that it has been issued before the expiry of limitation period prescribed for filing an appeal. 3. Considering the fact that the assessee has not prosecuted the tax case appeals, we are inclined to dismiss the tax case appeals for non-prosecution. 3\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016 & W.A. No. 1222 of 2016 Accordingly, the tax case appeals stand dismissed for non-prosecution with liberty to the appellant therein/assessee to restore the same, if such applications are filed S. VAIDYANATHAN,J. AND C. SARAVANAN,J. nv within reasonable time. Consequently, the writ appeal filed by the Department is allowed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed. (S.V.N.J.) (C.S.N.J.) nv 22.11.2022 To The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -4, Chennai – 600 034. T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016 & W.A. No. 1222 of 2016 4\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →