M/S KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/25610/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01004023201518 September 2015Bench: RAM MOHAN REDDY3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one, as the respondent's subsequent order required a new challenge. The Court allowed the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought to quash an order under Section 264 and requested condonation of delay in filing a revision petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent passed a new order.

What were the issues?

Whether the petitioner could withdraw the writ petition to challenge a subsequent order passed by the respondent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 6 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO. 25610 OF 2015 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

M/S. KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LTD., P.B. NO.5531, BANGALORE-PUNE HIGHWAY, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 055, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE).

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K. R. PRASAD, ADVOCATE AND SRI. ASHOK.A.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT (LTU), JSS TOWERS, 100FT RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085

2.

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

2 MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

3.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT (LTU), JSS TOWERS, 100FT RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085. ... RESPONDENTS

******** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 264 DATED 31.3.2015 IN ANNEXURE-E (REF.NO. 24/1/264/CIT(LTU)2014-15) OF THE R-1. SO FAR CONCERNED PARTICULAR ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR NAMELY 1998-1999. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR OTHERWISE TO THE R-1 DIRECTING HIM TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF AN DEAL ON MERITS WITH THE REVISION PETITION DATED 13.11.2013 IN ANNEXURE-A.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

3 O R D E R

Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 has during pendency of this petition passed an order which requires to be challenged and therefore seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/- JUDGE

kcm

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →