IDFC MUTUAL FUND THR.TRUSTEE IDFC AMC TRUSTEE COM. LTD. REP. BY ITS SIGNATORY MR. SUNIL ARYAMANE. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 AND ANR.

WP/731/2014HC BombayHCBM05003026201417 April 2015Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. SANKLECHA,F. M. REIS2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondent-Revenue indicated it would recall the notice dated 28/10/2014 and the order dated 14/11/2014. The counsel for respondent no. 3 stated that until the disposal of the appeal before the CIT(A), respondent no. 3 would not withdraw amounts deposited with the petitioner, and in case of an adverse order, the amount would not be withdrawn for two weeks thereafter. The petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the Writ Petition. The court accepted these statements and directed that the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. All contentions of both parties on merits were left open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, IDFC Mutual Fund, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging certain orders. The 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 respondent-Revenue, through its counsel, stated that in light of the CIT(A)'s order, respondent no. 1 would recall its notice dated October 28, 2014, and order dated November 14, 2014. Consequently, nothing survived in the Writ Petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Writ Petition survives for adjudication in light of the order passed by the CIT(A) and the subsequent actions of the respondent-Revenue. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to withdraw the Writ Petition as the impugned orders had been withdrawn by the respondent-Revenue, rendering the petition infructuous. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-Revenue, through its counsel, stated that in view of the CIT(A)'s order directing status quo, respondent no. 1 would recall the impugned notice and order. This effectively meant the orders under challenge in the Writ Petition were withdrawn.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 731 OF 2014 IDFC MUTUAL FUND THR.TRUSTEE IDFC AMC TRUSTEE COM. LTD. REP. BY ITS SIGNATORY MR. SUNIL ARYAMANE. ... 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/731/2014 notice dated 28/10/2014 and the order dated 14/11/2014. 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 →