2021 (10) TMI 1304 - HC - Income Tax

Consent order passed by the learned Single Judge - WP call for the records pertaining to the impugned second notice - HELD THAT - When the Writ Petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge the petitioner s counsel submitted that all the contentions of the petitioner may be left open and that the petitioner has already given her reply to the second respondent for the notices issued to her. The learned Single Judge directed the second respondent to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge also made it clear that all the contentions of the writ petitioner are left open. Since the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the Writ Appeal as against the consent order passed by the learned Single Judge the same cannot be entertained by this Court.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order in W.P(MD)No.5110 of 2016 - Consent order passed by Single Judge - Entertaining Writ Appeal against consent order.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to challenge the second notice dated 31.03.2015 and the consequential communication dated 18.02.2016 issued by the second respondent. The appellant requested to quash these documents.

2. The order under challenge in the Writ Appeal was identified as a consent order issued by the learned Single Judge. During the hearing before the Single Judge, the petitioner's counsel requested to keep all contentions open and informed that the petitioner had already responded to the second respondent's notices. Consequently, the Single Judge directed the second respondent to provide a personal hearing opportunity to the appellant before making any further decisions, emphasizing that all contentions of the writ petitioner remain open.

3. The High Court noted that since the Writ Appeal was filed against the consent order issued by the Single Judge, it could not be entertained by the Court. The Court emphasized that the appeal against a consent order cannot be maintained.

4. Consequently, the Court held that the Writ Appeal was not maintainable and therefore dismissed it, with no costs imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed as a result of this decision.