RAM NIWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/33336/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01171912202411 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that since the petitioner had already approached the appellate authority where its appeal was pending, it would not be appropriate for the Court to pass an order on the same issue that was before the concerned Appellate Authority. However, the Court acknowledged that it was always open to the petitioner to argue its point before the Appellate Authority, including the issue of jurisdiction, in light of the judgments passed by the High Court in Jasjit Singh (Supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (Supra). The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue its appeal and directed the Appellate Authority to take into consideration the aforementioned judgments. The Court also made it clear that no recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner till the appeal is decided, keeping in view the law settled by the Court in Jasjit Singh (Supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (Supra).

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Niwas, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the issuance of a notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under the new regime. The petitioner argued that the issue was a legal one that had been decided by the High Court in previous cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided on 29.07.2024) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024). The petitioner sought to have the present Writ Petition allowed in the same terms as those previous judgments. The Revenue, represented by Ms. Vedika, Advocate, accepted notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can be decided by this Court in a Writ Petition, considering the issue is pending before the appellate authority? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue before the JAO was a legal one that had already been decided by the High Court in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others. Therefore, the Writ Petition should be allowed in the same terms. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not explicitly record any arguments against the petitioner's contentions. However, the Court's observation implies that the Revenue's stance, or at least the Court's consideration, was that the matter was pending before the appellate authority.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-33336-202 125 IN T RAM NIWAS INCOME TAX CORAM: H

H Present: M

f SANJEEV PR

1.

Admitte assessm (Appea regardin Officer issue w titled a 29.07.2 titled as on 19.0 that the 2. Notice o 3. Ms. V Counse

24 (O&M)

Page 1 of 2 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

Vs. X OFFICER AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJA **** Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Vedika, Advocate for Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Stand for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) edly, the petitioner has preferred ment which is pending before th ls). Learned counsel for the petiti ng the notice having been issu (JAO) instead of the procedure which has been decided by this C as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of 024, and by the Coordinate Ben s Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Un 07.2024. Learned counsel for the p present Writ Petition be allowed of motion. edika, Advocate for Ms. Gau el accepts notice on behalf of resp B AND HARYANA AT H CWP-33336-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents EEV PRAKASH SHARMA AY VASHISTH ding Counsel d an Appeal against the order of he Commissioner of Income Tax ioner has submitted that the issue ued by Jurisdictional Assessing under the new regime, is a legal Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 India and others, decided on nch in CWP No.15745 of 2024 nion of India and others, decided petitioner, in view thereto, prayed in the same terms. uri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing pondents/Revenue.

) 4 r s f x e g l 3 n 4 d d g MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.11 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-33336-202 4. We fin authorit Court t concern argue it regard t above. 5. Grantin entertai (Appea in Jasji the appe 6. The Wr 7. It is ma petition this Cou 8. All pen

December 11, Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe

24 (O&M)

Page 2 of 2 nd that as the petitioner has al ty where its Appeal is pending, it to pass an order relating to the ned Appellate Authority. It is a ts point before the Appellate Au to the jurisdiction in view of the ju ng aforesaid liberty to the petition in this Writ Petition and at the sam ls) will take into consideration th it Singh (Supra) and Jatinder Sin eal of the petitioner. rit Petition is disposed of in the af ade clear that no recovery proceed ner till the appeal is decided, keep urt in Jasjit Singh (Supra) and Ja nding applications also stand dispo

(SAN 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y lready approached the appellate would not be appropriate for this same issue which is before the always open to the petitioner to uthority including the issue with udgments passed by this Court as ner, we do not propose to further me time, we observe that the CIT he judgments passed by this Court ngh Bhangu (supra) for deciding forementioned terms. dings shall be initiated against the ping in view the law as settled by atinder Singh Bhangu (supra). osed of accordingly. NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

e s e o h s r T t g e y MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.11 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →