ULHAS JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI AND ANR.,

WP/906/2016HC BombayHCBM05003000201629 September 2016Bench: F. M. REIS,HON'BLE KUM. JUSTICE NUTAN D. SARDESSAI2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was not justified because the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy in the form of a pending appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The Court noted that the petitioner could raise all their contentions, including the lack of reasons in the assessment order, before the CIT(Appeals) and seek interim relief there. The Court reserved the petitioner's right to avail of this alternate remedy. Regarding interim protection, the revenue agreed not to take coercive action until Monday, given the peculiar facts and circumstances. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ulhas Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging an assessment order. The petitioner argued that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was devoid of reasons, necessitating court intervention. The respondents, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another authority, contended that a substantive appeal was already pending before the CIT(Appeals). The petitioner also sought interim protection, stating they were required to deposit an amount by the following day. The revenue agreed not to take coercive action until Monday.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when a substantive remedy is pending before the CIT(Appeals)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The order passed by the Principal Commissioner is devoid of any reasons, and therefore, interference by the High Court is called for. Revenue's Contention: As a substantive appeal is already pending before the CIT(Appeals), the petitioner can avail of the remedy of filing an application in such appeal to seek interim relief and raise all contentions. The revenue did not rely on any specific authorities or circulars.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 906 OF 2016 ULHAS JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., ... Petitioner Versus PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri D. E. Robinson, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. A. Desai and Ms. S. Samant, Advocates for the respondents. Coram:- F. M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Date:- 29th September, 2016 P.C. Heard. 2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent, it is undisputed that a substantive remedy challenging the subject assessment is pending before the CIT(Appeals). Shri D. E. Robinson, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner however points out that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner is devoid of any reasons and as such, interference of this Court is called for in the present petition. However, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/revenue has submitted that as substantive appeal is already pending before the CIT(Appeal) the petitioner can avail of the remedy of filing an application in such appeal to seek interim relief and raise all these contentions.

2 WP/906/2016 3. As the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy, we find that interference of this Court in the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India would not at all be justified. Reserving the right of the petitioner to avail of such alternate remedy in the light of the observations made herein above, we disposed off the above petition. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted interim protection, as according to him, the petitioner is called upon to deposit an amount in term of the subject assessment by tomorrow. Ms. A. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/revenue however submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents/revenue shall not take coercive action until Monday. 5. Petition stands accordingly disposed off. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. F. M. REIS, J. vn

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →