CHAMPA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2571/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO004943202228 November 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The court held that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the preceding notice under Section 148A(b) were not passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court found no patent violation of the principles of natural justice or any lack of jurisdiction. The court also observed that the assessing officer had not acted in violation of or contrary to any provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the proceedings. The court reasoned that the order under Section 148A(d) is not a final assessment order nor a demand in itself, and the assessee petitioner would have ample opportunity in the subsequent reassessment proceedings to present their case for dropping the proceedings. The dismissal of the writ petition was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to raise all the points before the assessing officer in the ongoing reassessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Champa Impex Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 30, 2022, pertaining to assessment year 2018-19. This order was based on a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated March 15, 2022. The respondents were the Union of India and others. The High Court considered the submissions of both parties and the facts presented. The court noted that the impugned notice and order were not passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction, nor did they involve a patent violation of natural justice or a lack of jurisdiction. The court also found no violation of the Income Tax Act provisions by the assessing officer during the proceedings. The court viewed the Section 148A(d) order as neither a final assessment nor a demand in itself, and that the assessee would have opportunities to argue for dropping the reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 30, 2022, for assessment year 2018-19, suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction on the part of the issuing authority. 2. Whether the impugned order and the preceding notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, constitute a patent violation of the principles of natural justice or are without jurisdiction. 3. Whether the assessing officer acted in violation of or contrary to any provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the proceedings. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner challenged the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148A(b) on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and contravention of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that these procedural defects warranted interference by the High Court through a writ petition. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records the appearance of the respondents (Union of India and others) but does not explicitly detail their arguments. However, the court's reasoning implies that the revenue likely contended that the proceedings were valid and that the petitioner had alternative remedies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD –2 ORDER SHEET WPO/2571/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE CHAMPA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 28th November, 2022.

Appearance: Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mrs. Smita Das De, Adv. …For the Respondents The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30th March, 2022 relating to assessment year 2018-19 on the basis of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 15th March, 2022. Considering the submissions of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for the following reasons. (i) On perusal of the aforesaid impugned order I find that impugned notice and order has not been passed by an Authority having lack of any inherent jurisdiction. (ii) The aforesaid impugned order does not fall in those categories of cases where the Authorities concerned have committed patent violation of principles of natural justice or the same is without jurisdiction.

2 (iii) I do not find on perusal of the relevant records that at any stage the assessing officer in course of the proceeding has acted in violation of or contrary to any provisions of the Income Tax Act. I am also of the considered view that the aforesaid impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is neither any final assessment order nor such order is a demand in itself and assessee petitioner will have an ample opportunity and scope in course of proceeding subsequent to 148A(d) of the Act to make out the case for dropping the impugned reassessment proceeding. In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition being WPO 2571 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 course of the impugned proceeding.

(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →