Harbir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India

CWP/30896/2024

AI Insights

In the case of Harbir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, the petitioner challenged the proceedings conducted under Section 74 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing against the retrospective application of a notification issued by the council. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana found that the final order passed by the authorities was appealable under Section 107 of the Act, thus providing a statutory remedy to the petitioner. The court dismissed the writ petition, leaving all arguments open for consideration by the Appellate Authority, which is mandated to decide the appeal based on the merits and relevant records.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697199 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: AAMANDEEP TALWAR
• Keywords: Appeal; Efficacious Statutory Remedy; Income Tax; Statutory remedy
• Section: 74; 107

Judgement Text

" 131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Harbir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Union of India CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE M Present: Mr. A SANJEEV PRAKASH 1. One of the contents raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings could not have been conducted against him under Section 74 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 council could not be ap 2. We find that the authorities which is appealable in terms of Section 107 of the Act. A statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. Leaving all the arguments open to be taken up before the Appellate Authority, who is expected to decide the appeal on merits after considering all the relevant record by passing a speaking order, we dismiss the present petition. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: 18.11.2024 Harbir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Aamandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) One of the contents raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings could not have been conducted against him under Section 74 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notification issued by the council could not be applied retrospectively. We find that the final order has already been passed by the authorities which is appealable in terms of Section 107 of the Act. A statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. Leaving all the arguments open to be ore the Appellate Authority, who is expected to decide the appeal after considering all the relevant record by passing a speaking , we dismiss the present petition. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30896-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.11.2024 …Petitioner …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH , Advocate for the petitioner. SHARMA, J.(Oral) One of the contents raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings could not have been conducted against him under and the notification issued by the final order has already been passed by the authorities which is appealable in terms of Section 107 of the Act. A statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. Leaving all the arguments open to be ore the Appellate Authority, who is expected to decide the appeal after considering all the relevant record by passing a speaking One of the contents raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings could not have been conducted against him under and the notification issued by the final order has already been passed by the authorities which is appealable in terms of Section 107 of the Act. A statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. Leaving all the arguments open to be ore the Appellate Authority, who is expected to decide the appeal after considering all the relevant record by passing a speaking RAJESH KUMAR 2024.11.19 10:57 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-30896-2024 (O&M) [2] 3. Granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal and raise all arguments therein, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner. If any such appeal is filed, the same shall be decided expeditiously. 4. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 18.11.2024 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2024.11.19 10:57 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. "