MANUBHAI HARGOVANDAS PATEL vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers
WP/9818/2004HC BombayHCBM01033775200419 January 2005Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 (the revenue) to approach the ITAT to secure a fixed date for the hearing of the appeal. The objective is to have the appeal disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of the order. During the pendency of the appeal before the ITAT, no coercive measures will be taken against the petitioner for the recovery of the demand. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of this order. No specific finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's order dated November 8, 2004, as the matter was remanded for expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Manubhai Hargovandas Patel, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 8, 2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench. The ITAT had scheduled the appeal for final hearing on November 11, 2004, and had also directed that no coercive measures for recovery of the demand be taken by the department until then. The writ petition was filed in the interim. Consequently, the ITAT appears to have not proceeded with the hearing of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT's order dated November 8, 2004, which scheduled the appeal for final hearing and imposed a stay on coercive recovery measures, is valid and requires further consideration by the High Court? (Question of procedure and interim relief). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the ITAT's order and have the appeal disposed of expeditiously. The petitioner relied on the interim direction for no coercive measures. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by respondent No. 2, was present and heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9818 OF 2004 Mr.Manubhai Hargovandas Patel .. Petitioner. V/s. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai & Others .. Respondents. Mr.S.S. Jani for the petitioner. Mr.R.V. Desai, senior counsel with Mrs.S.V. Bharucha for the respondents. CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2005. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2005. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2005. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 8th November, 2004 whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench had kept the appeal for final hearing on 11th November, 2004 and had also observed that till then no coercive measures for the recovery of the demand to be adopted by the department. It appears that in the meanwhile this petition has been filed. In view thereof, the Tribunal seems to have not proceeded with the hearing of the appeal.

2 3. Under these circumstances, we direct both the petitioner and the respondent No.2 to approach the Tribunal to take a fixed date of hearing to get the above appeal disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from today. During the period when the above appeal is pending, no coercive measures will be taken against the petitioner. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of this order. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →