ICICI PRUDENTIAL MUTUAL FUND THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE, SIGNATORY MR. SURAJ R. BHOMKAR. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 AND ANR.

WP/732/2014HC BombayHCBM05003034201417 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 revenue stated that it would recall the impugned notice dated 20/10/2014 and the order dated 14/11/2014. Respondent no. 3 undertook not to withdraw amounts deposited with the petitioner until the disposal of the appeal before the CIT(A), and for two weeks thereafter if an adverse order was passed. In light of these developments, the petitioner sought and was granted leave to withdraw the Writ Petition. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that all contentions of both parties on merits were left open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund, filed a Writ Petition No. 732 of 2014 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petition challenged certain orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1. 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, the matter was heard, and respondent no. 3 produced an order dated April 10, 2015, from the CIT(A) directing parties to maintain status quo regarding recoveries of disputed amounts. In light of this, the revenue stated it would recall the impugned notices and orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Writ Petition survives for consideration in view of the order passed by the CIT(A) directing status quo and the revenue's statement to recall the impugned notices and orders. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the Writ Petition. Revenue's Contention: The revenue stated that in view of the CIT(A)'s order, it would recall the impugned notice dated 20/10/2014 and the order dated 14/11/2014, implying nothing further survived in the Writ Petition. Respondent no. 3 also made statements regarding the deposited amounts.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 732 OF 2014 ICICI PRUDENTIAL MUTUAL FUND THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE, SIGNATORY MR. SURAJ R. BHOMKAR. ... 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/732/2014 notice dated 20/10/2014 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 →