HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRESTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PANCHKULA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17633/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086446201720 December 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous. The Court noted the submission by the revenue that the appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2013-14 had been decided by the Tribunal and the appeal effect had been given. Following this, an amount of ₹15 crore was still payable. In light of these developments, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of as infructuous, with liberty to challenge the appeal effect order and the communication dated December 20, 2017. The Court granted this liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies available to it in accordance with law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original challenge to the demand notice or the stay order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated June 21, 2017, and June 22, 2017, under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated August 1, 2017, under Section 220(6) of the Act. The latter order declined the petitioner's application for a stay of recovery of demand during the pendency of its first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment years involved were 2005-06 to 2013-14. The revenue stated that the appeals for these years had been decided by the Tribunal and appeal effect given. An amount of ₹15 crore was still payable after adjustments, representing 20% of the total outstanding demand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the subsequent developments regarding the disposal of appeals by the Tribunal and the appeal effect given. The petitioner argued that the present writ petition may be disposed of as infructuous, with liberty to challenge the appeal effect order and the communication dated December 20, 2017, in accordance with law. The revenue contended that the appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2013-14 had been decided by the Tribunal and appeal effect given. After adjusting the same against arrears and current demand, an amount of ₹15 crore was still payable, which is recoverable from the assessee. A communication dated December 20, 2017, from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, was produced in court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 156,Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17633 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision:20.12.2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Revenue. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.

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 for quashing the Demand Notice dated 21.06.2017 and 22.06.2017 [Annexure P-9(colly)] under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short '1961 Act') and order dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure P-22) passed by respondent No.1 under Section 220(6) of 1961 Act declining the application for stay of recovery of demand during the pendency of the first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that appeal filed by the assessee-petitioner for the assessment years 2005-06 to Savita 2017.12.22 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh {2} 2013-14 have been decided by the Tribunal and the appeal effect has been given. It was stated that after adjusting the same against arrears and current demand, an amount of `15 crore is still payable to make 20% of the total outstanding demand which is recoverable from the assessee. A copy of the communication dated 20.12.2017 addressed to Sh. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel by the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, has been produced in Court today. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petition may be disposed of as infructuous by granting liberty to the petitioner to lay challenge to the appeal effect order and also to the aforesaid communication dated 20.12.2017 in accordance with law.

4.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the appeal effect order and also the communication dated 20.12.2017 by taking recourse to the remedies as may be available to it, in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)

JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) December 20, 2017 JUDGE savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2017.12.22 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →