KAVITA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 12, PUNE AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers

WP/1634/2018HC BombayHCBM01055698201719 January 2018Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. I. CHAGLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SANKLECHA3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the petition based on a statement made by the Revenue's counsel. The Revenue stated that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would hear the Petitioner's stay application if a fresh application was filed within one week from the date of the order. Furthermore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would decide the stay application within four weeks of its filing. Crucially, the Revenue assured that no recovery proceedings would be initiated against the Petitioner's dues for the assessment year 2008-09 until the stay application was disposed of. The Court accepted this statement and disposed of the writ petition accordingly. No decision was made on the merits of the original stay application.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Kavita Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 30, 2017, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Pune (Respondent No. 1). This order had rejected the Petitioner's application for a stay on an order dated March 18, 2016, passed by the Assessing Officer concerning assessment year 2008-09. The Petitioner sought relief from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a stay of the order dated March 18, 2016, passed by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2008-09. Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner sought a stay on the Assessing Officer's order. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities are recorded in the judgment for the Petitioner regarding the grounds for the stay. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, made a statement on instructions regarding the procedure for hearing the stay application. No arguments on the merits of the stay application were recorded.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Sharayu Khot. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 36390 OF 2017 Kavita Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. …Petitioner versus Comissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Pune & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, a/w Mr. Rohan Deshpande, for the Petitioner. Ms. Namita Shirke, a/w Ms. Hardeep Kaur, a/w Mr. Charanjeet Chanderpal, for the Respondents. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE : 19 January 2018 ORDER : 1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 30 November 2017 passed by 1/3

the Respondent No. 1Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By the impugned order, the Petitioner's Application for stay of the order dated 18 march 2016 passed by the Assessing Officer relating to assessment year 200809, was rejected. 2. Ms. Shirke, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, on instructions states that Respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) will hear the Petitioner on the stay application, if a fresh application for the stay of the order dated 18 March 2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is filed within the period of one week from today. 3. On instruction, it is further stated that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) will decide the same within a further period of four weeks. Further, till disposal of the stay application, if filed, the Revenue will not adopt any recovery proceedings in respect of the Petitioner's dues for the subject assessment year. 2/3

In view of the above, the Petition is disposed of in terms of the above statement. [RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.] 3/3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →