WEIKFIELD PRODUCTS CO. (I) PVT. LTD. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/8247/2005HC BombayHCBM01035540200524 January 2006Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Bombay, comprising Dr. S. Radhakrishnan and J.P. Devadhar, JJ., dismissed both writ petitions in limine. The Court noted that after the writ petitions were filed challenging the notice under Section 148, the Revenue had proceeded to complete the assessment and passed an order dated November 18, 2005. The petitioner had also filed appeals against this assessment order. Considering these subsequent events, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the validity of the Section 148 notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Weikfield Products Co.(I) Pvt. Ltd., filed two writ petitions (Nos. 8247 and 8248 of 2005) before the Bombay High Court challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Subsequent to the filing of these petitions, the Revenue completed the assessment and passed an assessment order dated November 18, 2005. The petitioner, aggrieved by this assessment order, has already filed appeals against it. Given these developments, the High Court considered the petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petitions challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act are maintainable after the Revenue has completed the assessment and passed an assessment order, and the assessee has filed appeals against the said order. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions or the merits of the assessment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India & Anr.) regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions or the merits of the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.8247 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.8247 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.8247 OF 2005 AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO.8248 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.8248 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.8248 OF 2005 Weikfield Products Co.(I) Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Union of India & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.S.N.Inamdar for petitioner. Mr.Ashok Kotangale for respondents. CORAM : Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

DATED : 24TH JANUARY, 2006. DATED : 24TH JANUARY, 2006. DATED : 24TH JANUARY, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. After the filing of the present petition challenging the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue has completed the assessment and passed the assessment order dated 18th November, 2005. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the petitioner has already filed appeals against the same. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. Hence both the petitions stand dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

(J. P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J. P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J. P. DEVADHAR, J.)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →