M/S GLAXOSMTHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LIMITED vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4(1) CHANDIGARH AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25524/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095187201714 May 2018Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE DR. SHEKHER DHAWAN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous. This decision was based on the fact that the revenue had produced a demand draft for ₹54,13,68,290/- in favour of the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had no instructions regarding the receipt of this demand draft. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an application for revival of the petition if the demand draft had not been received. The Court did not decide on the merits of the impugned orders or the legality of the recovery, as the production of the demand draft was considered sufficient to render the petition infructuous in the interim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 17.10.2017 and 27.10.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner sought setting aside of these orders and refund of ₹54,00,00,000/- illegally recovered from its bank account pursuant to a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue produced a demand draft for ₹54,13,68,290/- in favour of the petitioner, along with a covering letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner's counsel stated they had no instructions on whether the demand draft had been received.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is rendered infructuous in light of the demand draft produced by the revenue. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned orders and recover the amount illegally recovered. The core issue for the petitioner was the recovery of funds and the validity of the orders leading to it. Revenue's Contention: The revenue produced a demand draft for an amount slightly exceeding the amount sought to be recovered by the petitioner, implying a resolution or settlement of the dispute regarding the recovery. The revenue's action was to demonstrate compliance with the petitioner's claim for refund/recovery.

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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.05.2018 M/s Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited ... Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another ... Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present:- Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ.(ORAL) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for setting aside and quashing the order dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 for Assessment Year 2011-12 and for refund of the amount of `54,00,00,000/- illegally recovered from the bank account of the petitioner by respondent No.1 pursuant to the notice dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue has produced a photocopy of the demand draft No.885649 amounting to Vandana 2018.05.21 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh `54,13,68,290/- (`Fifty Four Crore Thirteen Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Ninety only) drawn in favour of the petitioner along with covering letter by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instructions whether the demand draft has been received.

4.

In view of the above, we dispose of the present writ petition as having been rendered infructuous as the respondent has produced the photocopy of the demand draft in favour of the petitioner. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application for revival of the petition in case the demand draft has not been received. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) 14.05.2018 JUDGE vandana Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Vandana 2018.05.21 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

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 →