|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 1644 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 1244
Appointment of arbitrator - service of notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on a person and joinder of such person in the application under Section 11 - prerequisites for an arbitral tribunal to exercise jurisdiction - source of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal over a person/entity - relevant inquiry that the arbitral tribunal must undertake when determining its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the ACA.
HELD THAT:- Section 21 notice was undisputedly issued by the appellant under Clause 40 of the LLP Agreement on 17.11.2020; but the problem arises because this notice was issued only to respondent no. 1. However, there is nothing in the wording of the provision or the scheme of the ACA to indicate that merely because such notice was not served on respondent nos. 2 and 3, they cannot be impleaded as parties to the arbitral proceedings. The relevant considerations for joining them as parties to the arbitration will be discussed at a later stage.
It is important to note this Court’s decision in State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises [2011 (7) TMI 1313 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that the claims and disputes raised in the notice under Section 21 do not restrict and limit the claims that can be raised before the arbitral tribunal. The consequence of not raising a claim in the notice is only that the limitation period for such claim that is raised before the arbitral tribunal for the first time will be calculated differently vis-a-vis claims raised in the notice. However, noninclusion of certain disputes in the Section 21 notice does not preclude a claimant from raising them during the arbitration, as long as they are covered under the arbitration agreement. Further, merely because a respondent did not issue a notice raising counter-claims, he is not precluded from raising the same before the arbitral tribunal, as long as such counter-claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Considering the purpose of a Section 11 application for constitution of an arbitral tribunal and the limited scope of examination into the existence of the arbitration agreement and prima facie finding on who are parties to it, it follows that the court under Section 11 does not conclusively determine or rule on who can be made party to the arbitral proceedings. Therefore, merely because respondent nos. 2 and 3 were not parties before the High Court under Section 11, and disputes against them were not referred to the arbitrator by order dated 24.11.2021, it does not mean that they cannot be impleaded at a later stage on this ground alone.
The arbitral tribunal in this case did not delve into the issue of whether respondent nos. 2 and 3 are parties to the arbitration agreement and consequently, whether they can be impleaded in the arbitral proceedings. It is also undisputed that these respondents are not signatories to the LLP Agreement that contains the arbitration agreement in Clause 40. In this light, we are required to examine whether respondent nos. 2 and 3 are parties to the arbitration agreement.
In view of the fact that respondent nos. 2 and 3 have, through their conduct, consented to perform contractual obligations under the LLP Agreement, it is clear that they have also agreed to be bound by the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 40 therein. Since they are parties to the underlying contract and the arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal has the power to implead them as parties to the arbitration proceedings while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the ACA and as per the kompetenz-kompetenz principle.
Conclusion - i) Service of Section 21 notice and joinder in Section 11 application are not absolute prerequisites for impleading a party or for the arbitral tribunal to exercise jurisdiction. ii) The arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is derived from consent under the arbitration agreement, and the tribunal must determine party status under Section 16. iii) Respondent nos. 2 and 3, though non-signatories, are parties to the arbitration agreement by virtue of their conduct and relationship, and can be impleaded as parties to the arbitration proceedings.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1243
Grant of Regular bail - recovery of substantial quantity of narcotics drugs - Applicant has sought bail on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the accused Azeem is the real brother of Shahid Ahmad @ Qazi Wadood, who allegedly sent contra-band to India. NCB/Prosecution has solely relied on the bank transaction between accused Azeem and Razi Haider Zaidi i.e. Rs. 36,500/- on 16.06.2019 Rs. 35,000/- on 22.06.2019 and Rs. 11,500/- on 16.03.2022 to cite the involvement and role of the accused in the alleged conspiracy.
Prima facie there is nothing on record to show that the money received by the Applicant on 16.03.2022 was tainted and proximate to the seizure of Heroine seized from Razi Haider 27.04.2022. Further, there is financial transaction of accused Azeem with the wife of co-accused Deepak Khurana of Rs. 6 lakh which is explained as payment for purchase of a Honda City car. Therefore, the character of these transactions and its connection with conspiracy of drug trafficking, is a matter to be proved at stage of Trial.
As per the record, the petitioner has been in custody since 05.05.2022, and charges are yet to be framed in the matter. It is evident that trial will take a long time to conclude. There is no likelihood of the Applicant fleeing from justice, as he has his business in India. Further, the Chargesheet stands filed and no purpose would be served in keeping the Applicant under custody.
It is opposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 wherein it was observed that courts are obligated to release the undertrial prisoners on bail if there is a delay in trial. Further, it was observed that statutory restrictions do not exclude the discretion of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India.
In the recent decision of Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2023 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court reiterated that that right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a sacrosanct right which needs to be accepted even in cases where stringent provisions are incorporated through special laws. It was held that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence, should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. It was further observed that fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to statutory restrictions and reiterated the principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”.
Conclusion - The applicant is admitted to regular bail, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1242
Adjustment of refund against the demand - payment of 20% of the demand for assessment year 2016-17 by the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the Petitioner has made payment of 20% of the demand for assessment year 2016-17 and the appeal for the said assessment year is pending as of today. As per the CBDT Circular once payment of 20% of the demand is made, the balance demand would be stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
Therefore, the adjustment of the refund for assessment year 2014-15 by the Respondent after the Petitioner has already paid 20% of the demand was not justified. This is contrary to their own Circular and the decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Ganatra [2025 (2) TMI 1086 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
The Petitioner has raised this very specific ground in his reply to the proceedings u/s 245 of the Act and same has not been controverted. In our view, since the appeal for assessment year 2016-17 is pending and the Petitioner has made payment of 20%, the reasoning given by the Respondent that the balance demand has not been paid and therefore the adjustment is justified is erroneous and contrary to the decision of this Court.
Thus, adjustment of refund arising out of proceedings for assessment year 2014-15 against the demand for assessment year 2016-17 is unjustified and illegal. Respondent is directed to refund the erroneous adjustment made of refund.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1241
Violation of principles of natural justice - Dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner without granting an opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- No useful purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal at this stage. Thus, the impugned orders dated 07.08.2021 & 19.12.2024 are quashed.
Matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1240
Violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to file a reply - cancellation of GST registration of the Petitioner firm - HELD THAT:- Without going into this issue, the Court is of the opinion that since the main persons who were conducting the business have both passed away and the SCN was issued in the year 2023 which was just around the same period when the Directors were suffering ill-health and had passed away. The Petitioner ought to be given an opportunity to defend itself on merits.
The proceedings initiated vide SCN dated 3rd December, 2023 are relegated to the adjudicating authority for the Petitioner to be provided a proper opportunity to be heard on merits. The Petitioner may file a reply to the SCN within 30 days - A personal hearing shall be afforded to the Petitioner as well.
The impugned order dated 8th April, 2024 shall stand set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1239
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Seeking issuance of an appropriate writ assailing the impugned order - excess claim of ITC - case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner never came to know of the SCN - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As per Section 107 (1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’), the limitation for filing an appeal is three months, which is extendible by one more month as per Section 107 (4) of the CGST Act. The Court has considered the matter. In terms of the impugned order, the Petitioner has to pay a demand of Rs. 7,88,611/-, including interest and penalty, which is a substantial sum.
In terms of Notification 9/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023, 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and 56/2023 –State Tax dated 11th July, 2024, the limitation for passing of the order-in-original by the Adjudicating Authority has been extended. Though the challenge to the said notifications is not being pressed, in this Petition, this Court is of the opinion that considering the nature of the demand, the Petitioner ought to be given an opportunity to assail the order on merits and place its stand.
This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, considering the plea that the Petitioner came to know of the impugned order only in March, 2025, the Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal challenging the impugned order, after making the pre-deposit in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act - Petiiton disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1238
Parallel proceedings - during pendency of the proceedings under Section 73 of the Act, another notice under Section 74 was issued with the same allegations - Eligibility to seek refund of ITC - HELD THAT:- Learned Standing Counsel prays for time to file response to the writ petition - Time prayed for is allowed.
List on 22.05.2025.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1237
Seeking modification of order dated 12th September, 2024, extension for filing a response to SCN - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the sample signature shows that it does not match the signature filed with the affidavit in support of the Petition and with the present application. The rent agreement which was handed over by the ld. Counsel for the Respondent also has a different signature of the Petitioner - Moreover, the spelling of the name of the Petitioner is also different. In some places, he used the name ‘SINGHAL’ but when he signed before the Court it was stated ‘SINGAL’. The Aadhar Card also has the Petitioner’s name as Singhal.
The Court is not satisfied as to the genuinity and the identity of the Petitioner.
The application is not liable to be allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1236
Levy of penalty u/s 122(1A) - relevant statute can be applied retrospectively for periods prior to its enforcement date of 1st January 2021, specifically for the period from July 2017 to December 2020 - HELD THAT:- As far as ad-interim relief is concerned, a prima facie case is made out for grant of ad-interim relief. Atleast prima facie, there are substance in the argument canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners. It is not in dispute that Section 122 (1A) was brought on the statute book only with effect from 1st January 2021 and yet penalty is sought to be imposed on the Petitioners for a period much prior thereto. Also, prima facie, we find that one of the issues raised in the present Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari [2024 (3) TMI 1277 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
A strong prima facie case is made out - the balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioners - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1235
Challenge to order passed under section 93(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 - GST registration of deceased father was cancelled posthumously - petitioner obtained a fresh registration for the same proprietary concern - HELD THAT:- A summons dt. 18.07.2022 was issued under section 70 to the father of the petitioner who no more was regarding non-payment of GST. The petitioner filed a reply thereto stating that his father died on 13.02.2018 and even enclosed the copy of the death certificate. He pointed out that there cannot be any proceeding initiated against a dead person after his death and requested to waive the liability.
However, the impugned order came to be passed on 28.11.2022 by 3rd respondent in regard to the proprietary concern of the petitioner’s deceased father quoting section 93(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. In that order it is held that if the business is carried on by a person’s legal representative after his death, the legal representative would be liable to pay tax, interest or penalty. But 3rd respondent did not provide details of any material evidence to show as to how the petitioner was said to be continuing business of the father’s proprietary concern having himself obtained a fresh registration on 24.03.2018.
In the absence of any material referred to by the said respondent as to on what basis it is held that the petitioner was continuing the business in the name of his father’s proprietary concern after his father’s death in spite of the petitioner obtaining a fresh registration in his own name on 24.03.2018, the impugned order dt. 28.11.2022 is perverse, based on no evidence and cannot be sustained.
Conclusion - The impugned order dt. 28.11.2022 is perverse, based on no evidence and cannot be sustained.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1234
Maintainability of appeal - appropriate form - non-constitution of appellate tribunal - Levy of penalty u/s 129(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Agra by the impugned order dated 29.11.2024. The appeal against the order passed by the aforesaid appellate authority lies under Section 112 of the UPGST Act, 2017 before the appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal has not been constituted till date. Section 112 of the UPGST Act, 2017 contemplates pre-deposit only in respect of the tax amount in dispute. Since no tax amount is disputed but only penalty is in issue no further amount is required to be deposited by the petitioner under Section 112 of the GST Act, 2017 - Matter needs consideration.
In view of the fact that no tribunal has been constituted the impugned order of penalty shall remain stayed. The goods which have been seized shall be released subject to the petitioner complying with the requirements of Rule 140 of CGST Rules, 2017. The amount of penalty deposited by the petitioner at the time of institution of the first appeal shall be adjusted while determining the amount of security in the form of bank guarantee and the bonds to be executed by the petitioner under Rule 140 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
The modification application is allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1233
Levy of penalty imposed under section 125 of the GST Act - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that no opportunity of hearing has been granted or is reflected in the said order, the order dated 20.01.2023 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1232
Prayer for modification of the order dated 14th August 2024 - amendment of Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 which received the assent of the President on 16th August 2024 and was published in the Gazette of India on that day itself - HELD THAT:- From a perusal of Section 143 of the Finance Act it would transpire that in Section 112 of the CGST Act the words “twenty percent” as appearing in clause (b)(i) have been substituted by the words “ten per cent”.
Since this Court by order dated 14th August 2024 had admitted the writ petition and passed an interim order on usual terms as provided in Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, the direction for deposit of 20 per cent should be treated as deposit of 10 per cent.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1231
Jurisdiction to initiate or continue proceedings under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Approval of a Resolution Plan under the statutory regime constructed in terms of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Once a Resolution Plan is duly approved under Section 31 (1) of the IBC, the debts as provided for in the Resolution Plan alone shall remain payable and such position shall be binding on, among others, the Central Government and various authorities, including the tax authorities. All dues which are not part of the Resolution Plan would stand extinguished and no person would be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of any claim for any such due. No proceedings in respect of any dues relating to the period prior to the approval of the resolution plan can be continued or initiated. In this clear view of the matter, there can be no doubt that the Impugned Proceedings and their continuation against the Petitioner-Assessee are wholly misconceived and untenable. The Impugned Order is essentially for the Financial Year 2019-20.
Evidently, such proceedings pertain to the period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan came to be approved on 26.10.2020. The conduct of such proceedings which has resulted in the passing of the Impugned Order would be directly in conflict with the law declared in Ghanshyam Mishra [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT]. Consequently, nothing in the Impugned Proceedings can legitimately survive.
Evidently and admittedly, the Impugned Order relates to the period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan of the Petitioner-Assessee, and therefore the claim made in the Impugned Order stands extinguished. This is why the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that initiation and continuation of proceedings relating to the period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan cannot be indulged in. Upon completion of the CIRP, the Petitioner-Assessee has completely changed hands and has begun on a clean slate under new ownership and management.
Conclusion - i) The Resolution Plan's binding effect precluded the Revenue from initiating or continuing proceedings for dues not included in the Plan, thereby invalidating the impugned order. ii) The tax authorities had no jurisdiction to proceed against the Petitioner for the Financial Year 2019-2020, as the Resolution Plan was approved on 26.10.2020, and the claims for the period prior to that date stood extinguished.
The impugned SCN and Order issued u/s 73 of the CGST Act are quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1230
Transition of Input Tax Credit - filing of TRAN-1 declaration in the web portal maintained by the appellants department - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS FILCO TRADE CENTRE PVT. LTD. & ANR. [2022 (7) TMI 1232 - SC ORDER] where it was held that 'Considering the judgments of the High Courts on the then prevailing peculiar circumstances, any aggrieved registered assessee is directed to file the relevant form or revise the already filed form irrespective of whether the taxpayer has filed writ petition before the High Court or whether the case of the taxpayer has been decided by Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC).'
Pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the department also issued Circular No.180/12/2022-GST dated 09.09.2022. Web portal was once again opened to enable the assessee to file TRAN-1 declaration form. The writ petitioner herein also availed the said facility and filed TRAN-1 form. All the issues raised in the writ petition have since been resolved. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1229
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Principles of natural justice - permissibility of cross-examination of a witness - ineligible availment f ITC based on fake documents - HELD THAT:- It is found from the memorandum of appeal filed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Howrah CGST & CX Commissionerate that the stand taken by the department is that the learned writ court ought to have held that the statement of Niraj Kumar Nathani is nothing but a corroborative one apart from other evidences including the said investigation and inspection report issued by the Bureau of Investigation, Government of West Bengal, Commercial Taxes as well as from the other documentary evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the order-in-original dated 30.10.2024 - the said statement need not be referred to in the event the assessee files a statutory appeal before the appellate authority.
Conclusion - Necessarily the assessee has to be relegated to file an appeal before the appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner (Appeal) CGST & Central Excise Appeal-II Commissionerate, Kolkata.
In the light of the fact that the time for preferring the appeal has already expired, the assessee is directed to file the appeal within 45 days from the date of receipt of server copy of this order and the assessee shall comply with the pre-deposit condition. The assessee shall be permitted to file the appeal manually as the online filing may not be possible as appeal is belated - matter disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1228
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of capital loss on dissolution of the HUF - AO has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income by claiming the said amount as deduction - HELD THAT:- As the argument by relying upon Section 171 does not take the case of the revenue any forward. One more aspect which we have taken note of is that partition of the HUF completely was accepted by the AO while completing the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act and therefore, it will be too late for the revenue to now turn back and say that they will not recognize the partition of the HUF in full form.
As already noted, the reason for which notice was issued for initiating penalty proceedings, is different from the conclusion which was arrived at by the Assessing Officer while passing the penalty order dated 30.6.2017. This is also yet another incurable defect which is called for interference of the penalty order. At this juncture, we need to point out that the law is well settled that the penalty proceedings are separate and independent from the assessment proceedings.
Even assuming an addition has been made in the assessment proceedings, that will not automatically warrant levy of penalty. There is a mandate cast on the revenue to show with sufficient material that there was a concealment of income by the assessee and the assessee attempted to evade payment of tax.
In the instant case, the assessee upon partition of the HUF in full form mistakenly treated the assets in the hands of erstwhile coparceners to be a transfer. This was subsequently ascertained during the course of the assessment proceedings and the assessee put forth the case to be a one of genuine mistake. If that be the case on facts, it is also one more ground for not to levy any penalty on the assessee.
Thus, Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee’s appeal and setting aside the penalty order. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1227
Disallowing interest paid to the beneficiaries u/s 40(b) - status of the Appellant Trust was that of Association of Persons - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in INDIRA BALKRISHNA (1960 (4) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] has held that an association of persons must be one in which two or more persons jointly held common purpose or common action and as the word occurs in a section which imposes tax on income, the association must be one which produces income, profits or gains.
The scope of Appeal u/s 260A of the Act is well settled. This Court, in an Appeal under Section 260A, can interfere with the finding of fact only if when the same is shown to be perverse. [See: SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA VS. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. [2016 (10) TMI 1233 - SUPREME COURT] and SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD. [2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT].
AO by applying the aforesaid criteria to the facts of the case, has held that the beneficiaries have come together voluntarily by pooling their money in the trust with clear knowledge that the funds will be utilized by the trust for the business of project work undertaken and would result in profits for the trust and consequently for the beneficiaries.
AO has recorded a finding that the Trust is an Association of Persons. Accordingly, the interest claim to the beneficiaries has been disallowed. The aforesaid findings recorded by the Income Tax Officer as AO, has been upheld in Appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the assessee himself has declared the status as an association of persons and on that basis, the Assessing Officer has passed the order. It has further held that declaration by assessee is not a mistake which has been erroneously made, as no attempt has been made to rectify the aforesaid mistake. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee, while filing the return, had described itself as an Association of Persons for which neither any attempt has been made to correct the so called mistake nor any explanation has been offered for making such a mistake.
The order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is based on meticulous appreciation of evidence. The finding of fact recorded therein by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse.
Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the status of the Appellant Trust was that of Association of Persons and thus the lower authorities were justified in disallowing interest paid to the beneficiaries under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1226
Transfer of case u/s 127 - Transfer income tax assessment file of the petitioner from the Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore to the Central Circle, Kolkatta (Central Circle-) - this transfer order has been passed to centralize the case of the petitioner for effective and co-ordinated investigation along with other cases Whether the respondents have sufficient material for transfer of the case from Coimbatore to Central Circle, Kolkata? - HELD THAT:- If the transfer is being made for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation for the purpose of assessment and collection of tax in a more convenient or efficient way, then it will be a good ground for transfer.
In the present case, this Court does not find any irregularity or infirmity in passing the impugned Notification by the 1st respondent ordering transfer of the case of the petitioner to Central Circle, Kolkata along with other cases only for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation in Lottery Group. No doubt, transfer of a case from the place where the assessee has its place of residence or business to another place causes inconvenience but if it is necessary in the public interest then the transfer on the ground of proper and co-ordinated investigation cannot be held to be impermissible in law.
Moreover, do not find any prejudice that would be caused due to the present notification to the petitioner because no final assessment order adverse to the petitioner was passed, except the transfer of the petitioner's case by invoking Section 127 of the Act from Central Circle, Coimbatore to Central Circle, Kolkata. The Income Tax Act, being a taxing statute, very strict interpretation has to be given and in the absence of any prejudice caused to the petitioner, the challenge to the impugned notification has to be rejected.
The case laws referred to by petitioner would not persuade this Court to take a different view contrary to the decision of the 1st respondent and hence, the said case laws would not improve the case of the petitioner.
This Court is of the view that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1225
Stay of demand - directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand, pending disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Authority for the Assessment Year 2016-17 - As argued notice u/s 148 was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas, as per the amended provision of the Act, that ought to had been issued in the Faceless manner - HELD THAT:- In the light of the subsequent amendments brought in the Act as also in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Union of India & ors., v. Ashish Agarwal [2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT] the Assessing Authority ought to had granted interim protection to the Assessee till finalization of the appeal which the Assessing Authority has not considered.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner so far as the 148 notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer not being in dispute by the learned Standing Counsel for the Department and also in the light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy [2023 (9) TMI 951 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] and in the light of the judgment of Ashish Agarwal (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Authority in the course of deciding the petition under Section 220(6) of the Act, ought to have taken a more pragmatic view and should had kept the recovery proceedings in abeyance, pending the appeal before the Appellate Authority.
We dispose of the present writ petition at this juncture directing the Assessing Officer not to pursue with the recovery proceedings in terms of the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 till the appeal for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is finally decided.
Considering the fact that the appeal was filed in the year 2023, we expect that the Appellate Authority shall take up the appeal and decide the same at the earliest.
............
|
9911796707
