MANISH JAIN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CUM INITIATING OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13353/2021HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01063142202123 July 2021Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the statement made by the respondent's counsel that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the non-exhaustion of the alternative remedy before the Adjudicating Authority. The respondent's counsel also assured that the Adjudicating Authority would consider all issues raised by the petitioner, including the plea regarding the invalidity of summons under Section 19 of the Act of 1988, after hearing the petitioner. In light of this assurance, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue all pleas before the Adjudicating Authority. The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to raise all contentions before the Adjudicating Authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Jain, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging various proceedings initiated under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (the Act of 1988). One of the grounds raised by the petitioner was that summons under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 could not have been issued. The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-cum-Initiating Officer, through their counsel, stated that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not exhausted the remedy before the Adjudicating Authority. The respondent's counsel further assured that the Adjudicating Authority would decide all issues raised by the petitioner, including the validity of the summons under Section 19, after hearing the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy available before the Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that summons under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 could not have been issued, implying a challenge to the initiation or continuation of proceedings on this ground. Revenue's Contention: The respondent argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has failed to exhaust the statutory remedy available before the Adjudicating Authority. The respondent agreed that the Adjudicating Authority would address all issues raised by the petitioner, including the validity of the summons issued under Section 19 of the Act of 1988, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 19

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13353-2021 -1- 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-13353-2021 Date of decision : 23.07.2021 Manish Jain ...Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-cum-Initiating Officer ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Ms. Anjali J. Manish, Advocate and Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. (Through Video Conferencing) **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) 1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the initiation of various proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1988”) and one of the plea which has been taken is that summons under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 could not have been issued. 2. Notice of motion. 3. On the asking of this Court, Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and states that the present writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has not exhausted his remedy before the Adjudicating Authority and has very fairly PAWAN KUMAR 2021.07.26 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-13353-2021 -2- stated that the Adjudicating Authority shall decide all the issues raised by the petitioner including the plea that summons under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 could not be issued, after hearing the petitioner. 4. In view of the statement made by Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the respondent, Ms. Anjali J. Manish, Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition at this stage with liberty to take all the pleas before the Adjudicating Authority. 5. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. 6. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE 23.07.2021 Pawan Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2021.07.26 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 19

All 57 judgments and leading authorities on Section 19 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →