KOTAK MAHINDRA MUTUAL FUND THR. ITS TRUSTEE, KOTAK MAHINDRA TRUSTEE CO. LTD. REP., MR. CHETAN KAKKA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 AND ANR.

WP/729/2014HC BombayHCBM05003030201417 April 2015Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. SANKLECHA,F. M. REIS2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the recoveries of disputed amounts. In light of this order, the Revenue's counsel stated that the impugned notice and order would be recalled. Consequently, the High Court found that nothing survived in the Writ Petition. The counsel for respondent no.3 further assured that respondent no.3 would not withdraw deposited amounts until the disposal of the appeal before the CIT(A), and in case of an adverse order, the amount would not be withdrawn for two weeks thereafter. The Court accepted these statements. The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the Writ Petition, which was granted. All contentions of both parties on merits were left open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging certain orders. The High Court had previously directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to dispose of a stay application filed by respondent no.3 by April 15, 2015. On April 17, 2015, respondent no.3's counsel produced an order dated April 10, 2015, from the CIT(A) directing parties to maintain status quo regarding recoveries of disputed amounts. The Revenue's counsel stated that in light of the CIT(A)'s order, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax would recall a notice dated October 27, 2014, and an order dated November 13, 2014. Consequently, nothing remained in the Writ Petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Writ Petition survives for consideration in light of the order passed by the CIT(A) directing status quo and the Revenue's statement to recall the impugned notices and orders. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought to withdraw the Writ Petition as the impugned orders were being recalled and the CIT(A) had directed status quo. The petitioner relied on the statements made by the counsel for the respondents. Revenue's contention: The Revenue stated that in view of the CIT(A)'s order, the respondent no.1 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) would recall the notice dated 27/10/2014 and the order dated 13/11/2014. Therefore, nothing survived in the Writ Petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 729 OF 2014 KOTAK MAHINDRA MUTUAL FUND THR. ITS TRUSTEE, KOTAK MAHINDRA TRUSTEE CO. LTD. REP., MR. CHETAN KAKKA. ... Petitioner Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 AND ANR. ... Respondent Mr. Farrokh Irani with Mr. Ryan Da Piedade Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. S.R. Rivankar, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Coram:- F. M. REIS & M. S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Date:- 17th April, 2015 P.C.: By an order dated 27/03/2015, we had directed CIT(A) to dispose of the stay application filed by the respondent no.3 on or before 15/04/2015. When the matter was taken up today for hearing Mr. S.R. Rivankar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has produced the order dated 10/04/2015 passed by the CIT(A), inter alia, directing the parties to the appeal to maintain status quo with regard to the recoveries of the disputed amounts. 2.

Ms. A. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-Revenue, upon instructions, states that in view of the said order passed by the CIT(A) the respondent no.1 shall recall

2 WP/729/2014 notice dated 27/10/2014 and the order dated 13/11/2014. As the impugned orders in the above petition have been withdrawn by the respondent-Revenue nothing survives in the above Writ Petition. But, however, Mr. Rivankar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3, upon instructions, states that until the disposal of the appeal before the CIT(A) the respondent no.3 shall not withdraw the amounts deposited with the petitioner herein. In case any adverse order is passed against the respondent no.3 the amount shall not be withdrawn for two weeks thereafter. We accept the said statements of the learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. In view of the above, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the above Writ Petition. The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. The statement of the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 & 3 referred to herein above stands accepted. All contentions of both the parties on merits are left open. M. S. SANKLECHA, J. F. M. REIS, J. NH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →