PREM CHAND BANSAL AND SONS (HUF) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6185/2021HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01025477202107 April 2021Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the respondent to consider and decide the issue of whether the petitioner is liable to pay tax at 100% or 125% within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. This decision is to be made in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. The Court found weight in the petitioner's argument regarding the time limit for tax payment and the respondent's concession to consider the case under the relevant circular. The ratio decidendi is that tax authorities should act expeditiously on matters concerning tax liability, especially when deadlines are imminent and relevant circulars are issued.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prem Chand Bansal & Sons (HUF), filed a writ petition challenging an order (Annexure P-5). The respondent conceded that the case should be considered in light of Circular No. 04 of 2021 dated March 23, 2021. The petitioner stated readiness to pay tax but highlighted the deadline of April 30, 2021, requesting a direction for expeditious decision. The respondent had no objection to this course of action. The High Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay tax at 100% or 125%? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation and applicability of Circular No. 04 of 2021). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner is ready to pay tax but seeks an expeditious decision from the respondent regarding the applicable tax rate (100% or 125%) before the payment deadline of April 30, 2021. Revenue's Contention: The respondent conceded that the case needs to be considered in view of Circular No. 04 of 2021 and had no objection to the High Court directing the respondent to decide the issue expeditiously.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM-5482-CWP-2021 in/and CWP-6185-2021 Date of Decision: 7.4.2021 Prem Chand Bansal & Sons (HUF) ..... Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. K.L. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM-5482-CWP-2021 Short reply on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. The application stands disposed of. CWP-6185-2021 This petition has been filed challenging the order (Annexure P-5). In the reply, it has been conceded that the case would have to be considered in view of the circular No.04 of 2021 dated 23.3.2021. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he would have no objection but the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has filed his application and he is ready to pay the tax but the time limit for the same is upto 30.4.2021 and therefore, a direction should be issued to the respondent to decide the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. We find weight in the arguments and Mr. Putney has no objection to this course of action. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and decide SHARMILA DEVI 2021.04.07 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc

CM-5482-CWP-2021 in/and CWP-6185-2021 -2- the issue whether the petitioner is liable to pay tax 100% or 125% within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law by way of passing a speaking order. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Secretary. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE 7.4.2021 sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SHARMILA DEVI 2021.04.07 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →