MAYTAS INFRA LTD., HYD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD AND ANO

PDF · subscribers
WP/33769/2010HC TelanganaHBHC01043220201006 January 2026Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action for the writ petition does not survive any further. Consequently, the Court found that the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court ordered that the writ petition be disposed of as having become infructuous, with no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also ordered to stand closed. The specific grounds challenging the validity of the Section 142(2A) audit order were not adjudicated upon due to the petition becoming infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Maytas Infra Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenged an order dated 27.12.2010, passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, referring the accounts of the petitioner for the assessment years ending 31.03.2003, 31.03.2005, and 31.03.2008 for a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought a declaration that this order was illegal, arbitrary, and untenable, and that their accounts were not liable for such an audit. The respondents were the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 27.12.2010, referring the accounts of Maytas Infra Ltd. for the assessment years ending 31.03.2003, 31.03.2005, and 31.03.2008 for a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is illegal, arbitrary, and untenable. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The cause of action for the writ petition no longer survives, and therefore, the petition can be disposed of. Revenue's Contention: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 348e 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HON'BLE SRI JUST]CE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION O: 33769 OF 2010 Maytas lnfra Ltd., A company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, with its Regd. Office 3'" Floor, Amogh Plaza, No.6-3-1186/5/A, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by its General Manager ( Legal and Contracts ) ...PETITIONER D 1. The Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 9, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 1, Hyderabad RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated In the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any writ, order or direction declaring that the order dt. 2711212010 referring to audit uls. 142 (2A) of the l.T.Act the accounts for the years ended 31-3-2003, 31:3-2005 and 31-3-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and untenable and to declare that the accounts of the petitioner conipany are not liable for audit u/s. 142 (2A). Counsel for the {,.-.. r' +_r'i i-ir.i:. Petitioner: Ms. SAGARIKA KONERU, REPRESENTING SRIY. RATNAKAR Gounsel for the Respondents: SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER

HONOURABLE SRt .IUSTICE P:SAM KOSHY AND HC)N'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITIO o.33769 N of 20I0 t.2026 Between: Maytas lnfia Ltd., Hyderabad ...Petitioner nnd 'the Dy.Cornmissioner of Income 1'r,t. I l-yderabad and another ...Respondents ORDER: (per l{on'ble Sri.lustice P.,\utrt Koshy) Ms.sagarika Koneru. learncd counsel representing Mr.Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for petitioner. sutr,rrits that the cause of action does not survive any further and the writ pctriion can be accordingly disposed of. 2. Accordingly, thc Writ Pctitiri* :;tilfldS disprl5sd of as having become infructuous. There shall be trcr order its to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any. shall stand closed. To MP dT SD/-K. MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Dy. co,nmissioner of lncome Tax, centrar circre - 9, Hyderabad. 2. The commissioner of lncome Tax, central circle - 1, Hyderabad 3. One CC to liRl Y. RATNAI(AR, Advocate [OpUC] 4. one cc to {iRl K. SUDHAKAR REDDy, senior s;c. for lncome Tax [opUC] 5, Two CD Copies .l* .ri.E. '.$i li

ct, a I / HIGH COURT DATED:06/01 12026 THE S c(i o ti 3 r:Q ?1126 AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS . * * ORDER WP.No.33769 of 2010 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION I.) A{ t l\*

More judgments on Section 142(2A)

All 676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(2A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →