HIGHPOINT MERCHANTS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WPA/22828/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA045760202228 November 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the writ petition. It held that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed after giving the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing, and the Assessing Officer had elaborately dealt with and discussed the issue. The court found no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the initiation of proceedings or a patent violation of the principles of natural justice. It also found no patent contravention of any specific statutory provisions by the Assessing Officer. The court noted that the order under Section 148A(d) is neither a final assessment nor a demand in itself, and the petitioner would have ample opportunity to present its case for dropping the proceedings in the subsequent assessment stage. The dismissal of the writ petition does not prevent the petitioner from urging all points before the assessing officer.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Highpoint Merchants Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act, both dated July 31, 2022. These proceedings relate to assessment year 2016-2017. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without effective opportunity of hearing and that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the issue. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and others, appeared before the court. The court perused the impugned order and noted that it was passed after giving an effective opportunity of hearing and that the Assessing Officer had elaborately dealt with the issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent notice under Section 148 were passed without giving the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Assessing Officer acted in contravention of any specific provisions of the statute in passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d)? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed without giving an effective opportunity of hearing and that the Assessing Officer did not properly deal with the issue. The petitioner also argued that the proceedings were initiated with an inherent lack of jurisdiction and that there was a patent violation of the principle of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the court's observations suggest that the revenue's position, implicitly, was that the proceedings were validly initiated and conducted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WPA 22828 OF 2022 28.11.2022

Sl no. 11

Highpoint Merchants Private Limited Ct no. 2

- Vs - P.M.

The Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Subash Agarwal,

Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh

… for the petitioner

Mr. Aryak Dutt

… for Union of India

Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.

By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31st July, 2022.

I have perused the aforesaid impugned order dated 31st July, 2022 relating to assessment year 2016-2017 being annexure P/6 to the writ petition and on perusal of the same I find that that the same has been passed after giving effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Assessing Officer has elaborately dealt with and discussed the issue in this case and such order is based on the reasoning recorded therein. It may be another thing that petitioner is not satisfied with the aforesaid reasoning.

2 Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and submission of the parties I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed for the following reasons. 1. This case does not fall within those categories of cases where the impugned proceedings were initiated and notices issued from time to time by the authority having any inherent lack of jurisdiction. 2. It is also not a case where there is patent violation of principle of natural justice. 3. It is also not a case that in course of passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) the Assessing Officer has patently acted in contravention of any specific provisions of statute. I am also of the view that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is neither a final assessment nor such order in itself is demand and the petitioner will have ample opportunity of hearing in course of the proceeding subsequent to 148 notice of the Act to make out a case in its favour for dropping the impugned proceeding.

3 In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition being WPA 22828 of 2022 is dismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from urging all the points raised in this writ petition before the assessing officer concerned in assessment proceeding.

(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →