Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION No.13601/2017 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.3, RMZ INFINITY TOWER E 4TH FLOOR, OLD MADRAS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 016. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SENIOR CORPORATE COUNSEL MR. THIRUMALESH GANGAPPA.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,)
AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3(1)(2), ROOM No.228, 2ND FLOOR
BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - III BMTC COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22-03-2017 AT ANNEX-L PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN S.P.45/BANG/2017 IN ITA
Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
2/7
NO.387/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 & ETC.,
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Mr.Percy Pardiwala, Sr,Counsel for Mr. T. Suryanarayana, Adv. for Petitioner
The petitioner-company M/s.Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, is aggrieved by the interlocutory stay order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short), ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru, for the Assessment year 2012-13, whereby, the learned Tribunal has directed in paragraph-18 of the impugned order to deposit 50% of the impugned tax demand and out of such 50% of the tax demand, the petitioner-company was directed to deposit 20% of the tax demand within seven days of the said order dated 22.03.2017 and balance amount shall be paid by the petitioner within 180 days in six equal installments.
Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
3/7
The learned Senior counsel Mr.Percy Pardiwala for the petitioner-company has referred to paragraph-5 of the impugned order and has drawn the attention of the Court towards the suggestion of the Bench of Tribunal given to the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-assessee that the Tribunal could stay the demand, subject to the condition of payment of 30% of the total tax demand, which, however, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-company did not accept and thereupon, discussing the rival contentions and the aspects relevant for grant of interim relief like prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss etc., the Bench of Tribunal had directed in paragraph-18 to deposit 50% of the total tax demand in the manner indicated above.
The learned Senior counsel Mr.Pardiwala also sought to urge contentions on the merits of the case, however, this Court is not inclined to go into the same,
Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
4/7
as the appeals are stated to be pending before the Tribunal for final hearing and the learned Senior counsel for petitioner-assessee also submitted that on one occasion, was even heard by the Bench concerned but for some practical reasons, the judgment could not be delivered. The said appeal is stated to be pending for the last one year along with the connected appeals which were filed earlier.
Since common issues are involved in all the pending appeals and they deserve to be heard by the Tribunal itself, this Court would not express any opinion about the merits of the case at all, leaving it free for the Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with the law. The Tribunal is therefore requested to decide the pending appeals expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today.
On the question of direction of the learned Tribunal to deposit 50% of the total tax demand, the
Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
5/7
learned Senior counsel fairly submits that the petitioner-company should be allowed to abide by the suggestion of the Bench of Tribunal as stated in paragraph-5 of the impugned order and the petitioner- company would be willing to deposit 30% of the total tax demand as indicated by the Bench of the Tribunal itself and the remaining 10% of the said demand may be directed to be deposited within a period of one month from today, since 20% of the total demand which was required to be deposited within seven days of the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 22.03.2017 stands deposited by the petitioner-company.
The said prayer of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-company is found to be in tune with the suggestion of the Bench of Tribunal itself as indicated in paragraph-5 of its order and even though, strictly speaking, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid interlocutory interim order passed by
Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
6/7
the learned Tribunal, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-company can be accepted even at this stage, coupled with the aforesaid request made to the learned Tribunal to decide the present appeal as well as the connected appeals expeditiously.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a slight notification of the direction given in paragraph-18 of the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal that instead of 50% of the total tax demand, the petitioner-company may deposit 30% of the said total tax demand disputed before the learned Tribunal and if the petitioner- company has already deposited 20% of the tax demand in view of the aforesaid direction of the learned Tribunal, remaining 10% of the same also be deposited by the petitioner-company within the aforesaid period of
Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
7/7
one month as undertaken by the learned Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner-company.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Srl.