CUTLER HAMMER PROVIDENT FUND TRUST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
CWP/27561/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01158042202318 January 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a second writ petition on the same cause of action, while an earlier petition on the same matter is still pending, is not maintainable. The court reasoned that allowing such a practice would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of. However, the court granted liberty to the petitioner's counsel to file an appropriate application for interim relief as and when a cause of action arises or to amend the writ petition to bring the subsequent notice within its ambit. No decision was made on the merits of the penalty notice itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Cutler Hammer Provident Fund Trust, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.10.2023. This notice demanded payment of Rs. 68,36,180/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner also stated that a prior penalty notice dated 08.07.2022, concerning the same issue, was already under challenge in a separate writ petition, CWP-28224-2022. Pleadings in that earlier petition were not yet complete, and it was listed for 03.04.2024. The High Court noted that a second writ petition on the same cause of action would not be maintainable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a second writ petition challenging a subsequent notice, when an earlier notice on the same cause of action is already pending adjudication, is maintainable under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner's counsel, faced with the court's observation regarding maintainability, did not argue the merits of the challenge to the notice. Instead, the counsel sought permission to file an appropriate application for interim relief as and when a cause of action arises or to amend the existing writ petition to include the subsequent notice. The respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Faridabad, did not present any arguments as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 221(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:006116-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (107)

CWP-27561-2023 Decided on : 18.01.2024 Cutler Hammer Provident Fund Trust

……Petitioner(s)

Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Faridabad

……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr.Jivesh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Saurabh Kapoor, Sr.Standing Counsel for the respondent.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the notice issued under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) which is for payment of Rs.68,36,180/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2.

It has been pleaded in the writ petition itself that the first penalty notice was dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) which is already subject matter of consideration in CWP-28224-2022 in which pleadings are yet to be completed and apparently the matter is listed for 03.04.2024. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that a second writ petition on the same cause of action would not be maintainable. 3.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to file an appropriate application for interim relief, as and when the cause of action arises or amend the writ petition to bring within the ambit of challenge to the subsequent notice issued. 4.

Writ petition stands disposed of with the afore-said liberty.

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI) January 18th, 2024

JUDGE Sailesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether Reportable :

No SAILESH RANJAN 2024.01.19 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 221(1)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →