M/s.Balaji Suppliers V. Union of India and 2 others

WP/30337/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Balaji Suppliers, represented by Mrs. Sarang Vanaja, who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and other income tax authorities due to the prolonged delay in adjudicating an appeal related to the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal, filed with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), had been pending for over three years without any decision. The petitioner sought a mandamus to compel the third respondent to adjudicate the appeal, claiming the delay was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court, after hearing the arguments, directed the third respondent to resolve the appeal within a specified timeframe.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 742468 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B MUKHERJEE; B SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: KAILASH P S S
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Highhanded; Illegal; Mandamus; Opportunity of being heard; Time Bound Manner; Violative
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

"[ 3386 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 30337 OF 2022 Between: lr//s. Balaji Suppliers, No.4-4-156, Mahankali Street, Secunderabad -500003 Rep by its Partner Mrs.Sarang Vanaja. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, Rep by Secretary, North Block, New Delhi. 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Hyderabad. 3. Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre New Delhi, Delhi - 110002. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not adjudicating the appeal filed by the Petitioner with appeal no. CIT (A), Hyderaba d-611O47612O19-20 for the AY 2012-13 even after a lapse of 2 /z years as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violative of Articte 14 and provisions of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent.to dispose of the appeal of the Petitioner in a time bound manner by giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the Respondents not to take any steps, including steps to recover the tax and penalty, pursuant to assessment order dt.31l12l2}1g and penalty order dr.o3l03l2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAILASH NATH.P.S.S. Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI B.MUKHERJEE, SC, REP. FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 & 3: M/s. B.SAPNA REDDY, SC, REP. FOR SRI J.V.PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Writ Petition No.3O337 of 2022 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSI{Y) The limited relief that the petitioner seeks in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the appeal hled by the petitioner, vrz., CIT(A), Hyderabad- 6l10476/20 19-20, dated 23.O1 .2021, before the 3.d respondent- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2. Heard Mr. Kailash Nath P.S.S., learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India, for the l\"t respondent; Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learrred Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Though more than 3 )/z years have elapsed, the appeal preferred by the petitioner still stands undecided. 4. The present r,r'rit petition is filed in July, 2022 and is being taken up to-day in October, 2023, and more than 14 months Even after filing of the present writ I have elapsed since then I 2 petition, the appeal preferred by the petitioner does not seem to be taken up for consideration. 5. Accordingly, with the consent of parties, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed with a direction to the 3.d respondent to take appropriate steps in ensuring that the appeal preferred by the petitioner viz., CIT(A), Hyderabad_ 6/10476/2O19-20, dated 23.O1.2021, be considered on its own merits in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of six (O6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to ensure that the order passed by this Court in this writ petition be uploaded on the National Faceless portal of the Income Tax Department. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous sha1l stand closed. petitions pending, if any, 7 nssrsiiffiAYrSiSaEE SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII I 1 To, I:ihi:3;'i3l'#',#ill\", or Finance, Dept of Revenue, North Block, New I *' 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre New Delhi, Delhi - I10002. 4. One CC to SRI KAILASH NATH.P.S.S., Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI J.V.PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDIA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies BSR GJP i I I HIGH COURT DATED: 1611012023 ORDER ) WP.No.30337 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ;,Ie STATE ( o 'i : ilttl ?rlZi fr ..' t :o {o /> t\" "