JUSTICE (RETD) GIRISHBHAI THAKORLAL NANAVATI V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 4(2),

SCA/18359/2018

AI Insights

The case involved a writ application filed by Justice (Retd) Girishbhai Thakorlal Nanavati against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), challenging a demand notice for outstanding tax for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The notice, issued on 12.10.2010, claimed an outstanding demand of Rs. 893,493. The petitioner contested the notice, leading to a temporary stay on coercive actions by the court. Subsequently, the Revenue acknowledged that the demand was incorrectly raised due to a technical glitch in the Central Processing Center, which affected the TDS credit. Following rectification, the demand was reduced to NIL, rendering the writ application infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 681419 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MAUNA BHATT
• Assessee Lawyers: B S SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Article 226; Impugned notice; Outstanding Demand; Rectification Order; TDS credit; Writ application
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/18359/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18359 of 2018 ================================================================ JUSTICE (RETD) GIRISHBHAI THAKORLAL NANAVATI Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE­ 4(2), ================================================================ Appearance: MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 16/03/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the Revenue. 2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs; “(a) quash and set aside the impugned notice at Annexure-A to this Petition; (b) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operation of the notice at Annexure A to this petition and stay further proceedings for assessment for A.Y.2016-17; (c ) any other and further relief deemed just and Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/18359/2018 ORDER proper be granted in the interest of justice; (d) to provide for the cost of this petition.” 3. We need not advert to the facts in details giving rise to this litigation as the petition can be disposed of on a short ground. 4. The subject matter of challenge in this litigation is the notice issued to the writ applicant with regard to the outstanding demand. The impugned notice dated 12.10.2010 reads thus; “On verification of records of this office, it is found that the following arrear demand is/are outstanding in your case. A.Y. Amount Rs./ 2016-17 Rs.893493/- Total Rs.893493/- 2. You are hereby, again requested to make immediate payments of above outstanding demand levied under provisions of I.T Act along with the interest as applicable and produce proof in lieu of payments before the undersigned. In case, you have already paid the amounts, please produce the copy of paid up Challan either personally or through an authorized representative so that this office record may be updated accordingly. 3. Therefore, you are hereby requested for immediate payment of the above demand on or before 29.10.2018, failu8r to which, will entail for recovery proceedings immediately as per the provisions of law.” Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/18359/2018 ORDER 5. On 03.12.2018, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order; “Heard Mr. B. S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner. Issue Notice returnable on 21st January, 2019. By way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action pursuant to the impugned demand notice. Direct Service is permitted. ” 6. Mr. Bhatt, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue invited our attention to the averments made in Para-2 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Revenue. “At the outset, I submit that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the demand notice dated 12.10.2018 for an amount of Rs.8,93,493 for the A.Y.2016-17 has been incorrectly raised. I humbly submit that the Central Processing Center had reflected the demand due to the fact that the credit of TDS was not granted due to some technical problem. I submit that the necessary rectification has been carried out and demand is reduced to NIL. A copy of the rectification order dated 27.12.2018 passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A. I submit that the grievance of the petitioner has been settled and therefore, this petition has become infructuous.” 7. Thus, the Revenue has clarified that the impugned demand notice for the A.Y. 2016-17 came to be inadvertently issued as the Central Processing Center had reflected such demand because of the fact that the credit of Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/18359/2018 ORDER TDS was not granted due to some technical clinches. It is clarified that, later, the necessary rectification came to be carried out and the demand is reduced to NIL. The rectification order dated 27.12.2018 passed under Section 154 of the Act has also been placed on record along with the affidavit-in-reply as Annexure-A. 8. In such circumstances, referred to above, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this writ application. 9. The writ application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) Vahid Page 4 of 4 "