M/S POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT LTD vs. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WA/16492/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01006868201130 October 2012Bench: B.V.PINTO,K.SREEDHAR RAO3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the possibility of factual errors in the Single Judge's order and directed the first respondent to pass orders without being influenced by those observations. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner alleged three factual inaccuracies in a previous High Court order, including incorrect statements about demand notices, Supreme Court orders on interest, and affirmation of an order under Section 115(J). A review petition was filed but not decided.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court order contained factual inaccuracies that prejudiced the petitioner's case. The appropriate remedy for correcting factual errors in a judicial order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115(J),Section 220(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO W.A. Nos.16492-94/2011 BETWEEN : M/S. POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 16, BOMMASANDRA INDL. AREA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI U.N. BALRAM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. APPELLANT (BY SRI M/S. K.R. PRASAD, ASHOK A. KULKARNI, GOPALAKRISHNA RAO,GANESH R. GHALE AND SIDDAREDDY K.G., ADVOCATES) AND : 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX, (INV.) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING ANNEXE,

2 QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. RESPONDENTS ( BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, CGSC) THESE W.As. ARE FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.13426-28/2010(T-IT) DATED 28/01/2011 AND R.P.NO.133/2011 DATED 7/9/201. These appeals are coming on for admission this day, SREEDHAR RAO, J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT The restriction filed by the petitioner is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is grievance of the petitioner that there are three factual incorrect observations made in the order of the learned Single Judge. 1) There is a mention that the demand notice is issued, but no such demand notice is issued. 2) There is mention that the petitioner had filed SLP before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has ordered for payment of interest U/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act. The petitioner had filed appeal, but the Supreme Court has not made mention about the payment of interest. 3) It is observed that the order passed U/s 115(J) is affirmed by the Supreme Court and that is factually incorrect.

3 2.The said factual incorrect observations should have been got removed by way of review. The Appellant did file review but no orders are passed in that regard. However, it is held that the petitioner can avail remedy as per para 8 of the petition. If there are incorrect observations contrary to the record, the first respondent need not be influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE NM*

More judgments on Section 220(2)

All 550 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →