M/S AMBICA SALES CORPORATION vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/52852/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01056622201930 August 2023Author: KRISHNA S DIXIT2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found force in the submission made by the panel counsel for the respondents. The court held that since the impugned order is appealable under the provisions of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the writ petition should not be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. All contentions were kept open. The court directed that if an appeal is filed within four weeks, the question of limitation, laches, and delay would be insignificant. Furthermore, as the petitioner was being nonsuited on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy, no precipitative action would be taken against the petitioner under the impugned order for a period of four weeks. Costs were made easy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Ambica Sales Corporation, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated March 7, 2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (R-1) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought a declaration that the impugned order was without jurisdiction. The respondents, represented by their counsel, argued that the impugned order was appealable under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. The court considered this submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 263, implicitly arguing for its maintainability on grounds of jurisdiction. No specific arguments were recorded for the assessee regarding the maintainability of the writ petition itself. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the impugned order is appealable under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

NC: 2023:KHC:30919 WP No. 52852 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.52852 OF 2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S. AMBICA SALES CORPORATION, NO.1, MDP MARKET, BETTAPALANE, C.T. STREET CROSS, BENGALURU-560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED MUJASSIM., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-5, 5TH FLOOR, ROOM 538, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,6TH BLCOK, KORAMANAGALA, BENGALURU-560 095

2.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(2)(1), 5TH FLOOR, ROOM 538, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP M., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:07.03.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NC: 2023:KHC:30919 WP No. 52852 of 2019

ORDER

The panel counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that impugned order being appealable under the provisions of Section 253 of Income Tax Act, 1961, writ petition should not be entertained. There is force in this submission. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal as indicated by the Counsel for the Revenue. All contentions are kept open. If appeal is filed within a period of four weeks the question of limitation, latches & delay shall pale into insignificance.

Since Petitioner is being nonsuited on the ground of availability of alternate remedy as insisted upon by the Revenue, no precipitatory action shall be taken against the petitioner under the impugned order for a period of four weeks. Costs made easy.

Sd/- JUDGE ABK CT:SNN

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →