SRI CHOWDESHWARI CREDIT CO OP SOCIETY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WA/1261/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01053085202321 November 2023Author: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA3 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the appellant's grievance was that the learned Single Judge rejected the interim prayer for not agreeing to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount. The appellant's counsel submitted that they had offered to deposit 1% and sought leave to move the learned Single Judge with an increased prayer to deposit more than 1% of the disputed tax amount. The Court requested the learned Single Judge to consider this enhanced prayer. Since the appellant sought to move the Single Judge with an amended prayer, the High Court found that nothing further survived in the writ appeal and disposed of it. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original interim prayer or the grounds raised in the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sri. Chowdeshwari Credit Co Op Society, filed a writ petition (W.P.No.16365/2023) before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order or action by the Income Tax Department. The appellant's interim prayer in the writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The reason for rejection was that the appellant had not agreed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount. The appellant is now filing a writ appeal against this interim order, seeking to set it aside and have the grounds raised in the writ petition adjudicated. The appeal is directed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur; the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2; and the National Faceless Assessment Centre.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the interim prayer in W.P.No.16365/2023 solely on the ground of the appellant not agreeing to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount? The appellant argued that they had offered to deposit 1% of the disputed tax amount, which was not accepted. They sought leave to approach the learned Single Judge with an enhanced offer to deposit more than 1% of the disputed tax amount. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA WRIT APPEAL NO.1261 OF 2023 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. CHOWDESHWARI CREDIT CO OP SOCIETY 1NO.2918, DODDAIAHNA PALYA HALEPALYA ROAD, TIPTUR TQ TIPTUR-572 201 PAN: AAJAS6686G REP. BY CEO SRI. MRUTHYUNJAYA S/O CHANNABASAVARAYYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS …APPELLANT

(BY SHRI. S.V.RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WARD-1, TIPTUR TUMKUR NH-206 BANGALORE - HONAVAR ROAD TIPTUR-572 201

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI-110 003 …RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.16365/2023 DATED 23.08.2023 TO THE EXTENT HELD AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY NOT ADJUDICATING THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO GRANT THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16365/2023.

Heard Shri S.V.Ravishankar, learned advocate for the appellant.

Appellant’s grievance is that the Hon’ble Single Judge has rejected the interim prayer by recording that appellant did not agree to deposit 10% of the disputed tax

amount. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that he had offered to deposit 1% and the same was not accepted. After arguing the matter for some time, he seeks leave to move the Hon’ble Single Judge with an increment in his prayer to deposit more than 1% of disputed tax amount. We request the Hon’ble Single Judge to consider the same.

In view of the above, nothing survives in this appeal and it stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →