MS HP BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
ITA/3/2016HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01001726201611 May 2017Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appellant, M/s H.P. Board of School Education, to withdraw the present appeal. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings, including filing an application for review or rectification, if permissible. The appellant undertook to file such an application within four weeks. The Court directed that its interim order dated January 29, 2016, shall continue to remain in force until a decision is taken on the appellant's application by the appropriate Authority. The Authority was directed to decide the application expeditiously, preferably within three months. The Court also clarified that limitation shall not be an impediment for the adjudication of the appellant's petition, given that the appellant had been pursuing remedies before the Court. Liberty was reserved for the appellant to approach the Court subsequently if required. The appeal and any pending applications were disposed of as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s H.P. Board of School Education, filed an appeal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh against an order or action by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The specific assessment year(s) and the nature of the dispute are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that an interim order was passed by the High Court on January 29, 2016. The appellant, through their counsel, sought permission to withdraw the present appeal, reserving liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, including review or rectification applications. The Court granted this permission and reserved liberty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellant should be permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to initiate further proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel, sought permission to withdraw the present appeal. They also requested liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, including filing an application for review/rectification, if permissible under law. They undertook to file such an application within four weeks and cooperate with the authorities. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the withdrawal of the appeal. However, the revenue's counsel was present, and the Court proceeded to grant the permission for withdrawal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

ITA No.3 of 2016

Date of decision: 11.05.2017

M/s H.P. Board of School Education ..Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Income Tax

. Respondent

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Vaidya, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________________________

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, states that appellant be allowed to withdraw the present appeal, reserving liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, including filing an application for review/rectification, if permissible. Permission granted. Liberty reserved. 2.

Appellant undertakes to file such application within a period of four weeks from today and till decision thereupon is taken by the appropriate Authority, we direct that our interim order dated 29th January, 2016, shall continue to remain in force. Petitioner further undertakes to fully cooperate and not to take unnecessary adjournments. The Authority shall decide the application expeditiously and

2 preferably within a period of three months thereafter. Needless to add, since petitioner had been pursuing remedies before this Court, limitation shall not come in the way of adjudication of such petition. Liberty reserved to approach the Court, if so required subsequently.

Appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn, so also, pending application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.

( Sanjay Karol )

Acting Chief Justice

May 11, 2017 ( Sandeep Sharma ) (vt)

Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →