ASHWIN D MEHTA HUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

SCA/8807/1995HC GujaratGJHC24019629199515 February 2000Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE J.N.BHATT,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.BUCH2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat held that the petition merits rejection. The Court observed that the authority had assigned reasons in the impugned order under Section 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for withholding the refund until the decision of the appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This was considered a distinguishing factor from a previous order that had been challenged. The Court also noted that the petition was filed in 1995 and should be at an advanced stage. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, grounds stated in the impugned order, and the purport of Section 241, the petition was rejected. The Court also directed the ITAT to hear the pending appeal expeditiously so that the refund could be finalized early, and it was open for the petitioner to move for early hearing before the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashwin D Mehta HUF, filed a Special Civil Application No. 8807 of 1995 before the High Court of Gujarat. The challenge was to an order passed under Section 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 11.9.1995. This order, issued at the instance of the Revenue, withheld a refund of Rs. 7,57,660/- pending the decision of an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). This impugned order was passed pursuant to a previous direction from the High Court in Spl. Civil Application No. 1719/95 dated 6.4.1995. The petitioner sought to challenge the validity of this withholding order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order under Section 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, withholding the refund of Rs. 7,57,660/- till the decision of the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, passed at the instance of the Revenue, is vulnerable. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order withholding the refund was vulnerable. (No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the judgment for the petitioner's arguments). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the order under Section 241 was justified. They argued that the authority had assigned reasons in the impugned order for withholding the refund until the appeal was decided by the ITAT, distinguishing it from a previous order challenged by the petitioner. (No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the judgment for the revenue's arguments).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 241

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8807 of 1995

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT

and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements?

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHWIN D MEHTA HUF Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR SN SOPARKAR for Petitioner MR BB NAIK WITH MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 2

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH

Date of decision: 15/02/2000

ORAL JUDGEMENT ( PER : J.N.BHATT, J ) The only question which crops up for consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether order under sec. 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 withholding the amount of refund of Rs. 7,57,660/- till the decision of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of Revenue, passed on 11.9.1995 pursuant to the direction contained in our decision recorded in Spl.Civil Application No. 1719/95 dated 6.4.1995, is in any way, vulnerable.

After having heard learned Counsel Mr. S.N. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Counsel Mr. B.B. Naik for learned Central Government Counsel Mr. M.R. Bhatt for the respondents and considering the context and tenor of the impugned order under sec.241 of the Income Tax Act,1961, we are of the opinion that the petition merits rejection. Authority has assigned reasons in the impugned order in support of withholding the amount of refund till the decision of the appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under sec.241 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unlike the one which was challenged before us in Special Civil Application No.1719/95. Again, the petition is of 1995 and it must be at an advanced stage for final hearing.

In the facts and circumstances, and the grounds stated in the impugned order and the purport and design of the provisions of sec. 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, this petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected at this stage. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. However, it is observed that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal will hear the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible so that amount of refund for which the petition came to be filed, could also be finalised early. It will be open for the petitioner to move for early hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal. ------ *rawal

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →