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

PDF · subscribers
WP/8248/2005HC BombayHCBM01035543200524 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 held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Revenue had already completed the assessment and passed an order, and the petitioner had already filed appeals against that assessment order. The Court considered these subsequent events as the basis for not proceeding with the writ petitions. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed in limine, meaning they were dismissed at the outset without a detailed hearing on the merits. No specific issue regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice or the assessment itself was decided. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petitions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Weikfield Products Co.(I) Pvt. Ltd., filed two writ petitions (WP No. 8247 of 2005 and WP No. 8248 of 2005) before the Bombay High Court challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the pendency of these petitions, the Revenue completed the assessment and passed an assessment order dated November 18, 2005. The petitioner subsequently filed appeals against this assessment order. Given these developments, the High Court decided not to entertain the writ petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the Revenue has already completed the assessment and the assessee has filed appeals against the assessment order. Assessee's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee regarding why the writ petitions should be entertained despite the assessment order being passed and appeals being filed. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue.

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 →