EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2

PDF · subscribers
WP/6636/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01015757202027 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka took the memo filed by the petitioner on record. The memo stated that the petitioner had resolved the dispute under the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and consequently, the writ petition had become infructuous. Therefore, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition. In light of the petitioner's submission and the resolution of the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the Court found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original issues raised in the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging two orders. The first order, dated January 30, 2020, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (R-2) rejecting the petitioner's application for stay of demand for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The second order, dated March 4, 2020, was passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (R-1) directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand. The total demand in dispute was Rs. 39,72,97,873/-. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and prevent enforcement of the demand until the disposal of their appeal before the CIT(A). Subsequently, the petitioner filed a memo seeking to withdraw the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (R-2) rejecting the application for stay of demand for AY 2017-18 is liable to be quashed? 2. Whether the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (R-1) directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand is liable to be quashed? 3. Whether the demand of Rs.39,72,97,873/- under notice of demand dated 21.12.2019 issued under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-18 should be stayed until the disposal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the CIT(A)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders and stay the demand. Later, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the dispute has been resolved under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and sought to withdraw the petition as it had become infructuous. Revenue's Contention: No specific arguments are recorded for the revenue as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42651 WP No. 6636 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.6636 OF 2020 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 NO.3/1, 3RD FLOOR, J P TECHNO PARK, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.KSHITIJ JAIN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,

BMTC BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR,

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, 6TH BLOCK,

BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLE 2(1)(2), BMTC BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK,

BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2020 (ANNX.F) PASSED BY THE R-2 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF THE DEMAND FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42651 WP No. 6636 of 2020

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“(i) Quashing the order bearing No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1024473248(1) dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure-F) passed by the 2nd Respondent rejecting the application for stay of the demand filed by the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 2017-18.

(ii) Quashing the order bearing No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1026081817(1) dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure-H) passed by the 1st Respondent directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand.

(iii) Directing the 2nd Respondent not to enforce the demand of Rs.39,72,97,873/- under notice of demand bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1022834580(1) dated 21.12.2019 (Annexure-B) issued under Section 156 of the Act in respect of the AY-2017-18 till the disposal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the CIT(A);

(iv) Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition. The said memo is taken on record and the same reads as under:

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42651 WP No. 6636 of 2020

“The advocate for the petitioner most humbly submits that the above petition was filed interalia challenging the order dated 30.01.2020 rejecting the application for stay of the demand and the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the 1st Respondent directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand for assessment year 2017-18.

It is submitted that the petitioner has resolved the dispute under the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. A true copy of the Form 5 dated 02.03.2021 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A. Thus, it is most humbly submitted that the above writ petition has become infructuous and the petitioner seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the same.

Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to take the memo on record and dismiss the above petition as withdrawn, in the interest of justice and equity.”

3.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →