BSC C& C JOINT VENTURE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 62, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/8498/2019HC DelhiDLHC01032343201928 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition in part. The Court noted the respondent's stand that the order of June 28, 2019, was a draft assessment order. Based on this admission, the Court held that the accompanying notice of demand and penalty orders could not sustain. Consequently, the Court quashed the notices of demand and those proposing penalties, both dated June 28, 2019. The Court explicitly left it open for the respondents to take further steps as permissible in law and kept all rights and contentions of the respective parties on merits open. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, BSC C & C Joint Venture, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an Assessment Order dated June 28, 2019, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner also sought to quash the accompanying Demand Notice and Notice of Penalty, both dated June 28, 2019. The respondent, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, contended in their counter affidavit that the order dated June 28, 2019, was merely a draft assessment order. The petitioner argued that since the order was accompanied by a demand notice and penalty orders, it could not be considered a draft assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated June 28, 2019, accompanied by a notice of demand and penalty orders, can be considered a draft assessment order, thereby rendering the demand and penalty notices unsustainable? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of assessment proceedings). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of a demand notice and penalty orders alongside the assessment order meant it was a final order and not a draft, as contended by the revenue. They relied on the procedural consequence of issuing such notices. Revenue's Contention: The respondent contended that the order dated June 28, 2019, was a draft assessment order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8498/2019

BSC C & C JOINT VENTURE

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mayank Singh Nagi & Mr. Tarun Singh, Advs.

versus

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 62, NEW DELHI

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC along with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Jr. SC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

28.08.2024 O R D E R

1.

This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- “a) A Writ of Certiorari or Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India quashing the Assessment Order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the AO for Assessment Year 2015-16.

b) A Writ of Prohibition or Writ, order or direction in the nature of Prohibition, or any other appropriate Writ, order of direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing status quo on the impugned Order dated 28.06.2019; and the Demand Notice and Notice of Penalty dated 28.06.2019; and for restraining the Respondent from giving effect to the same during the pendency of the present Writ.

c) To pass ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (a) and (b);

d) To pass such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2.

We find that the respondents in the counter affidavit which has been filed in these proceedings, have taken the position that the order 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 03/09/2024 at 11:56:38

of 28 June 2019 which is sought to be assailed is essentially a draft assessment order. 3. The petitioner had however contended that since the same was accompanied and followed by a notice of demand as well as orders proposing penalties, the same cannot possibly be viewed or accepted as being an assessment in draft. 4. However, and in light of the stated stand of the respondent that the order of 28 June 2019 is an order of assessment in draft, surely the notice of demand as well as penalty cannot sustain. 5. We accordingly allow the writ petition in part and quash the notices of demand as well as those proposing penalties, both dated 28 June 2019. 6. We leave it open to the respondents to take such further steps as may be otherwise permissible in law. All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.

YASHWANT VARMA, J

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J AUGUST 28, 2024/RW 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 03/09/2024 at 11:56:38

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →