BALDEV SINGH vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18962/2020HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01091285202020 April 2021Bench: MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH,MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner had filed an application for compounding of offences. In response to the petition seeking expeditious disposal of this application, the respondents filed a short reply and annexed an order dated 13.04.2021, which indicated that the competent authority had indeed decided the compounding application. Given this development, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that nothing further remained for adjudication in the present petition, and it had become infructuous. Therefore, the High Court disposed of the petition as infructuous, without delving into the merits of the compounding application itself or the original default in TDS compliance. No specific finding was given on the expeditiousness of the decision, as the matter was resolved by the subsequent decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Baldev Singh, is engaged in the business of digging foundations for bridge pillars and utilizes the services of various subcontractors. For the assessment year 2011-12, the petitioner failed to deduct and deposit Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) from payments made to subcontractors on time, although it was later deposited upon being pointed out by his auditors. Consequently, the respondents issued a show cause notice and filed a complaint against him. The petitioner filed an application dated 04.03.2020 requesting the compounding of these offences. The present petition sought a direction for the respondents to expeditiously decide this compounding application. A short reply was filed by the respondents, annexing an order dated 13.04.2021 deciding the compounding application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's application for compounding of offences under the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been decided expeditiously by the respondents? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and timeliness of the compounding process). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his application for compounding of offences, filed on 04.03.2020, required expeditious decision by the respondents. The petition was filed to seek a direction for such expeditious disposal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through a short reply, stated that the competent authority had already decided the petitioner's compounding application vide an order dated 13.04.2021, which was annexed with their reply. They did not explicitly argue on the timeliness but presented the fact of the decision.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP No.18962 of 2020 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18962 of 2020 Date of Decision:-20.04.2021 Baldev Singh. ......Petitioner. Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (NWR) Chandigarh & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARAKSH Present:- Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Denesh Goyal, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)

[The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court.] Petitioner-Baldev Singh is engaged in the business of digging of foundation for the pillars of the bridges all over the country for which he has to take the services of various sub contractors. It is is his case that in the year 2011-12 due to practical reasons he failed to work out Tax Deduction at Source, liable to be deducted and collected from such sub contractors, at sites and deposit the same on time although the same was deposited on being pointed out by his Auditors. For the said lapse it appears that respondents have issued a show cause notice and a complaint has also been filed against him. Vide application dated 04.03.2020 VINAY MAHAJAN 2021.04.23 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.18962 of 2020 #2# (Annexure P-8) petitioner requested respondent no.1 to compound the said offences. Prayer in this petition is for directing the respondents to expeditiously decide said application Annexure P-8. Upon notice short reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the competent authority has decided Annexure P-8 vide order dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure R-1) annexed with the short reply. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that nothing more survives for adjudication in this petition and the same has become infructuous. Disposed of as infructuous. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE ( SANT PARAKSH ) JUDGE April 20, 2021 Joshi/Vinay Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINAY MAHAJAN 2021.04.23 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →