MADHYANCHAL GRAMIK BANK V. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/4335/2017

AI Insights

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank filed a writ petition against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging an assessment order and a subsequent garnishee order that led to the attachment of the bank's account. The petition sought to quash these orders and requested directions for the credit of advance tax and TDS to the bank. The court noted that the garnishee order had been withdrawn and the assessment order was under revision. The respondent agreed to expedite the revision process and the consideration of any refund application. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition with these directions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 670858 (HC-MADHYA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V S SHROTI; A NAGPAL
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Garnishee Order; Income Tax; Mandamus; Revision application

Judgement Text

"WP-4335-2017 (MADHYANCHAL GRAMIK BANK Vs ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) 16-05-2017 Shri V.S. Shroti, learned senior counsel with Shri A. Nagpal, for the petitioner. Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Bank claiming the following reliefs:- “(a) Certiorari quashing the order, dated 23.03.2016, passed by the respondent Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Annexure P/10); (b) Certiorari quashing the garnishee order, dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure P/12) passed by the respondent Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax attaching the SBI account of the petitioner; (c) Mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to give credit of the advance tax paid by the three amalgamated Banks and TDS deducted for them to the petitioner in the matter of payment of income tax for financial year 2012-13; (d) Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the revision application.” The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner had previously filed W.P. No. 3107/2016 against the aforesaid order of assessment which was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to assail the same by filing a revision and pursuant to the said order, the petitioner-Bank has already filed a revision before the revisional authority which is pending and therefore, the petitioner does not wish to press the prayer no. 7(a). As far as prayer no. 7(b) is concerned, the respondents have filed a return/reply and have placed on record the order dated 23.03.2017 by which the impugned order Annexure P/12 dated 07.03.2017 has been withdrawn. In the circumstances, as the respondents have already withdrawn the impugned order dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure P/12), nothing further survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that during the existence of the impugned order dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure P/12), the respondent/authority had operated their account and withdrawn a sum of Rs. more than Seven Crores towards liability assessed by them by impugned assessment order dated 23.03.2016 (Annexure P/10) against which a revision is pending before the revisional authority. It is submitted that instead of deciding the aforesaid revision, the respondents/authorities issued a garnishee order and during its existence withdrew the amount from the petitioner's account and in such circumstances, the respondents/authorities be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's revision as expeditiously as possible and to decide the application seeking refund of the amount withdrawn by the respondent/revenue which the petitioner shall file before the revisional authority. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Department submits that the revision filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the revision filed by the petitioner expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and also consider and decide the application that may be filed by the petitioner seeking refund of the amount withdrawn by the respondent/department. To enable the respondents/authorities to do so, a certified copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petition be served upon them, by the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules. (RAVI SHANKAR JHA) JUDGE (ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI) JUDGE MSP "