Arigela Satyanarayana V. Union of India

WP/33857/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Arigela Satyanarayana, the petitioner, challenging a stay order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Karimnagar, which mandated a 20% payment of a disputed tax demand based on a circular dated 31.07.2017. The petitioner argued that the order was unlawful, arbitrary, and violated principles of natural justice as it was a non-speaking order without reason. The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court decision, found that the Income Tax Officer had the discretion to consider the specifics of the case and could potentially order a lesser amount than 20% pending the appeal. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case for re-evaluation, instructing the authority to provide a personal hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 685990 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Principle Commissioner of Income Tax vs. LG Electronics India Private Limited
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 14 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B MUKHARJEE; SUNDARI PASUPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: T PRADYOTH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Natural Justice; Stay order; Tax Collection; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

",r [ 337e I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ANO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO.33857 oF 2023 Between: Arigela Satyan arayana, 1-9-30, Adarsha Nagar, Metpally, Old Karimnagar Dist., Jagityal District - 505325. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3, Aayakar Bhavan, Karimnagar. 3. The lncome Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi. 4. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Karimnagar. 5. The Tax Recovery Officer, TRO PCff - 2, Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned stay order having DIN and Lefter No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712023-2411058467162(1) passed by the 4th Respondent dated 05-12-2023 as being unlawful, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and without any application of mind, being a non- speaking order and bereft of reason, being in violation of principles of natural justice and set-aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to further stay the collection of tax pursuant to the assessment order dated 21 -09-2021 beaiing Dl N No. |TBA/AST tst 1 47 t2021 -22t 1 OZsz 67642(1 ). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. PRADYOTH Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA FOR SRI B. MUKHARJEE, S.C. FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: Ms. SUNDARI R. pASUpATHt, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER ( THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.33857 OF 2o23 ORI)ER:@er Hon'bLe Sri Justice P.SAM XOSHY) 1. Heard Mr.T.Pradyoth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Mukharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Gadi, Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy General of India, for respondent No. 1 and Ms.Sundari R. Pasupathi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 to 5. 2. Trre present is a writ petition which has been filed questioning the order dated 05.I2.2O23 passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the application frled by the petitioner seeking for a stay of the demand notice raised pursuant to the assessment order dated Ol.O2.2O2l which has been decided in terms of the Circular dated 31 .07.2017 and the petitioner has been directed to pay 2O%o of the disputed demand. 3. The present writ petition has been hled primarily relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in. the case of Princlple Commissioner of Income Tax o. LG Electronics Indla Prioate Llmitedr. In the said case, the learned Additiona-l '(zors) rg scc +az '' ,/ 2 Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Income Tax Department itself has made a statement before the Honble Supreme Court that the administrative circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a quasi-iudicial authority. It was clarilied bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in all cases like the oresent. it will be ooen to the authorities. on the facts of individual cases, to qrant deposit orders of a lesser amount than 2Oo/o. pendins the aopeal. 4. In the teeth of the said order, the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 under challenge in this writ petition does not seem to be appropriate, legal or justifred. The authority concerned had the discretion to pass appropriate order in the given factual circumstances of the appeal which was pending before the authorities concerned. The authority concerned could not have in a mechanica-l manner relied upon the circular dated 31 .O7 .2OI7 while passing the said order. We are of the considered opinion therefore, the said impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and accordingly set aside/quashed and the matter stands remitted back to the 4h respondent for a fresh consideration of the interim application that has been frled by the petitioner. It is expected by the authorit5r concerned that an appropriate decision to be taken at Ix\" 3 the earliest. Before taking a decision, the authority concerned may also grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 5. Considering the fact that considerable time has a_lready lapsed, the let the petitioner appear before the concerned authority for personal hearing on the 28.12.2023. There shall be no further requirement of any issuance of notice for personal hearing of the petitioner. The assessing authority shall after due hearing being prorrided to the petitioner pass appropriate orders. 6. Accordingiy, this Writ Petition stards disposed of. 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/- K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT RE !STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER '1 . The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance' Union of lndia' New Delhi. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3, Aayakar bhavan' Karimnagar' 3. The lncome Tax Officer, Assessment Unit' National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi. 4. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2, Aayakar Bhavan' Karimnagar' 5. The Tax Recotery Officer, TRO PCfi - 2' Signature Towers' Kondapur' Hyderabad. 6. One CC to SRI 7. One CC to SRI 8. One CC to Ms. SUNDARI R' PASUPATHI' S C' for lncome Tax [OPUC] 9. Two CD CoPies' >. To, I I B PRADYOTH, Advocate TOPUCI MUKHARJEE, S.C. for Central Government [OPUC] MP GJ HIGH GOURT DATED:1511212023 * ORDER WP.No.33857 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 s 9 . t-^J H u r LJ L] O t-- o y 1 *ft "