Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar

CWP/5841/2014

AI Insights

M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. filed a writ petition against the garnishee notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar, which were directed to recover a substantial amount for tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner was contesting various orders under different sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including sections 143(3), 263, and 271(1)(C). The petitioner argued that the notices were issued to pre-empt them from availing the remedies of statutory appeals, as they had already filed appeals against the orders with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court found that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available and thus declined to interfere at this stage, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795552 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year; Garnishee notices; Income Tax; Penalty
• Section: 143(3); 263; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.5841 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.03.2014 **** M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Advocate for Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate the petitioner **** SURYA KANT, J. (Oral) (1) The petitioner – M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. impugns the Garnishee Notices dated 13.02.2014 and 20.03.2014 (Annexures P9 & P12) issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar and addressed to (i) Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co.Ltd. and (ii) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. for the recovery and deposit of a sum of Rs.28,21,94,177/- towards income tax, penalty and interest etc. levied on the petitioner for the assessment year 2008- 2009. (2) It is averred in the writ petition that against the order dated 25.03.2013 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), the petitioner filed an appeal before the Vishal V 2014.03.31 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.5841 of 2014 - 2 - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, pending that appeal, the Assessing Officer passed the order under Section 143(3)/263 of the Act on 19.09.2013 against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is further averred that during the pendency of the above-stated appeal, order dated 28.11.2013 under Section 271(1)(C)/143(3)/263 of the Act was also passed. The petitioner assailed that penalty order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also sought stay of the demand raised by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner’s stay application was declined on 10.02.2014 and soon thereafter the impugned notices have been issued with an intent to pre-empt the petitioner from availing the remedies of statutory appeals etc. The petitioner is said to have filed an application for early hearing before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) for an earlier decision of its appeal in the penalty matter but meanwhile, the second Garnishee notice dated 20.03.2014 having been issued that it has approached this Court. (3) During the course of hearing and on a query by us, counsel for the petitioner states that the Assessing Officer and other authorities are claiming that the petitioner’s appeal against the penalty order dated 28.11.2013 has been dismissed/disposed of by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) but copy of the said order is yet to be received by the petitioner. These facts are, however, not disclosed in the writ-petition. Vishal V 2014.03.31 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.5841 of 2014 - 3 - (4) In this fact situation when the petitioner admittedly has got an alternative remedy to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we decline to interfere in the matter and dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) to supply copy of the appellate order passed in the penalty matter within two days to enable the petitioner to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or any other appropriate forum. (5) Dasti during the course of day. (Surya (Surya (Surya (Surya Kant) Kant) Kant) Kant) Judge Judge Judge Judge 27.03 27.03 27.03 27.03.2014 .2014 .2014 .2014 vishal shonkar ( ( ( (Amol Rattan Singh Amol Rattan Singh Amol Rattan Singh Amol Rattan Singh) ) ) ) Judge Judge Judge Judge Vishal V 2014.03.31 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "