PLANETCAST MEDIA SERVICES LIMITED LM MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED NOW MERGED WITH PLANETCAST ME vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAX-2-2-1

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3192/2025HC DelhiDLHC01013156202524 March 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court accepted the Revenue's submission that the impugned order and demand notice were issued to a non-existent entity. Consequently, the Court set aside both the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 and the impugned demand notice dated 13.02.2025. The Court clarified that this order would not prevent the Revenue from initiating any fresh proceedings, if such proceedings are otherwise permissible in law. The primary reasoning was the concession made by the Revenue regarding the issuance of the impugned actions to a non-existent company, which rendered the actions legally unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Planetcast Media Services Limited (formerly LM Media Services Private Limited), filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 13.02.2025, issued under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a demand notice dated 13.02.2025, both pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22. The core of the challenge was that these were issued against a non-existent company, rendering them void, illegal, and without jurisdiction. The Revenue, through its counsel, acknowledged that the impugned notice and order were issued to a non-existent entity and agreed to set them aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 and demand notice dated 13.02.2025, issued for Assessment Year 2021-22 under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are void, illegal, and without jurisdiction as they were issued against a non-existent company? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and demand notice were issued against a non-existent company, making them void, illegal, and without jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that the impugned notice and order were issued to a non-existent entity and agreed to set them aside. However, the Revenue reserved its right to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3192/2025 & CM No. 14923/2025 PLANETCAST MEDIA SERVICES LIMITED LM MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED NOW MERGED WITH PLANETCAST MEDIA SERVICES LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney & Mr. Nikhil Agarwal, Advs. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAX-2-2-1 .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Ms. Naincy Jain & Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 24.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the Impugned Order dated 13.02.2025 issued for Assessment Year 2021-22 under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 along with Impugned Demand Notice dated 13.02.2025, for being issued against a non-existent company, and hence, void, illegal and without jurisdiction.” 2. Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, at the outset, states that he has obtained the necessary instructions. He states that the impugned notice as well as the impugned order be set aside as the same have been issued to a non-existent entity. He, however, submits that the right of the Revenue to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law be reserved. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:48:36

3.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notice as well as the impugned order is set aside. However, it is clarified that this order would not preclude the Revenue from initiating any fresh proceedings, if otherwise permissible in law. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MARCH 24, 2025 ‘gsr’ Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:48:36

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →