M/S ACCENT FOR LIVING vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR INCOME TAX PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2786/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01069874200910 March 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the undisputed fact that an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the penalty order was available to the assessee-petitioner. Furthermore, it was conceded by the petitioner during the course of arguments that an appeal had, in fact, been filed after the institution of the writ petition. Therefore, in view of the availability and utilization of the appellate remedy, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The assessee-petitioner was directed to pursue their remedy of appeal. No decision was made on the merits of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Accent for Living, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of a penalty order dated January 22, 2009, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panipat. The penalty of Rs. 22,21,350/- was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This penalty stemmed from an assessment order passed on December 26, 2006, for the assessment year 2004-2005 under Section 143(3) of the Act. It was not disputed that an appeal against the penalty order was available to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, it was conceded that an appeal had indeed been filed after the writ petition was instituted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available and has been availed by the assessee-petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the assessee regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the penalty. However, the filing of the writ petition itself indicates a challenge to the penalty order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, did not explicitly argue on the merits of the penalty. The primary stance implied by the court's decision is that the existence of an appeal remedy renders the writ petition inappropriate. The judgment notes that it is not disputed that the remedy of appeal is available.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2786 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: March 10, 2009 M/s Accent for Living, G.T. Road, Panipat …Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner for Income Tax, Panipat Circle, Panipat …Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr. R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel (Indirect Taxes), for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing penalty order dated 22.1.2009 (P-6) passed by the respondent. The assessment order finalising the assessment in respect of assessment year 2004-2005, under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was passed on 26.12.2006. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-respondent has imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,21,350/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the assessee-petitioner.

C.W.P. No. 2786 of 2009 It is not disputed that the remedy of appeal against order dated 22.1.2009 is available to the assessee-petitioner. During the course of arguments it is conceded position that after filing of the instant petition, an appeal has, in fact, been filed. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the writ petition is dismissed and the assessee-petitioner may pursue his remedy of appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) March 10, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →