MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/8924/2025HC DelhiDLHC01039259202516 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court took on record the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The respondents had stated that in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the demand notices and other related notices/orders, such as assessment/penalty orders/show cause notices related to the demands issued against M/s USTPL, may be treated as withdrawn. In view of this submission by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner agreed that the prayers made in the writ petition were answered. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition as having become infructuous. No specific finding was made on the validity of the individual orders or notices, as they were deemed withdrawn by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Maharashtra Seamless Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to quash various demand notices, rectification orders, penalty orders, assessment orders, and show cause notices pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-2019, and to restrain the respondents from initiating or continuing proceedings for periods prior to the approval of a Resolution Plan on 21 January 2019. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, in their counter affidavit, stated that notices and orders were issued to M/s USTPL (United Seamless Tubular Private Limited) after the NCLT order. They further submitted that in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the demand notices and other related notices/orders issued against M/s USTPL may be treated as withdrawn.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand notices, rectification orders, penalty orders, assessment orders, and show cause notices pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-2019, issued to M/s USTPL, should be quashed, and whether proceedings for periods prior to 21 January 2019 should be restrained? (Question of law and fact, concerning the impact of a Resolution Plan and subsequent directions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash all proceedings and orders related to tax demands for AY 2018-2019 and to prevent further proceedings for periods prior to the Resolution Plan approval. The petitioner agreed to dispose of the matter based on the respondents' stand. Revenue's Contention: The respondents stated that the notices/orders were issued to M/s USTPL after the NCLT order. Crucially, they submitted that in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the demand notices and other related notices/orders issued against M/s USTPL may be treated as withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8924/2025, CM APPL. 38223/2025, CM APPL. 38224/2025 MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Wamika Trehan and Mr. Varun Chopra, Advs. versus INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. for Revenue CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

16.09.2025 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “a. Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus/ certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction quashing the Demand Notice dated 12 December 2024, Rectification Order dated 12 December 2024, Rectification Order dated 20 March 2023, Penalty Order dated 25 April 2022, Penalty order dated 27 April 2021, Assessment Order dated 31 October 2021, Demand Notice dated 31 October 2021, Show Cause Notice dated 08 September 2021 and Show Cause Notice dated 02 September 2021 and all other proceedings, orders and notices pertaining to tax demands pertaining to the Assessment year 2018-2019; and/or b. Issue a direction to the Respondents to not initiate / continue any proceedings and pass such orders and notices for the period(s) prior to approval of the Resolution Plan, i.e., prior to 21 January 2019; and/or” 2. The respondents, in their counter affidavit vide This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2025 at 12:02:51

paragraphs 14, 15 and 16, have stated as under :- “The humble answering respondent most respectfully submits that on perusal of the records of M/s USTPL, it is observed that the notices/ orders have been issued/ passed by the AO for the relevant AYs after the order of the Hon'ble NCLT. The undermentioned Demand Notices/ Assessment/ Penalty orders. under challenge in the present Writ Petitions, were issued to M/s USTPL: -“ “15. The Assessment Order dated 08.03.2021 was issued by the Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, under Section 143(3) read with Sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act"), in respect of the Assessee, United Seamless Tubulaar Private Limited ("USTPL/Assessee"), for the relevant Assessment Year. Pursuant thereto, a corresponding Demand Notice dated 08.03.2021 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Hyderabad, under Section 156 of the IT Act, raising a demand based on the said assessment order. 16. The humble answering respondent most respectfully submits that in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2025 at 12:02:51

Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2019), that the demand notices & other related notices orders, such as assessment/ penalty orders/ show cause notices related to above demands, issued against M/s USTPL may be treated as withdrawn” 3. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same shall answer the prayers as made by the petitioner in the writ petition and the matter be disposed of taking their stand on record. 4. If that be so, we take on record the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit and dispose of the petition as having become infructuous. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 cd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2025 at 12:02:51

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →