Manisha Dixit V. The Union of India

WP/102/2024

AI Insights

In this case, Manisha Dixit, the petitioner, challenged the dismissal of her stay application regarding an income tax assessment order. The stay application was dismissed by the Assessment Officer, which led to the filing of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare the dismissal of her stay application as illegal and arbitrary. The High Court noted that an identical writ petition had been previously allowed, leading to the decision to allow the current petition in terms of the earlier decision. The court did not impose any costs and closed any miscellaneous applications pending in the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 731995 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Principle Commissioner of Income Tax vs. LG Electronics India Private Limited
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR; SUNDARI R PASUPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: L RAVINDER
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Stay Application; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 220(6)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I I wRIT PETITION NO: 102 OF 2024 Between: Manisha Dixit, Wo. Sambhav Sharma, aged 32 Yrs., Occ. Business, C/o. Sy.No.615, Seeetharama Puram Bagh, Hayathnagar, R.R District, Telangana - 501 505 ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance' lncome Tax Department. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi. The Assessment Officer, lncome Tax Department Ward 8 (1), Hyderabad. ...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 issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent ,l No.3 in passing the order DIN and Letter No.ITBA/RCV/F11712023- 2411059162602(1) dated 28-12-2023 dismrssing the stay application filed by the writ petitioner uts.22o (6) of lncome Tax Act. as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion. the High court may be pleased to grantinterimstayofRecoverypUrsuanttotheAssessmentOrderDlN 2 3 No.lTBA/AST/St1 43(3)t2O22-23_t 104831 2SsS(1) dated disposal of the above Writ petition. 28-12-2022, pending Counsel for the petitioriier: SRI L.RAVINDER Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF |NDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: M/s. SUNDARI RPASUPATI, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPT. The Court made the foltowing: ORDER J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI W.P.No.1O2 of 2o24 ORDER: per ao n'ble Srt Ju-stice P.SAII KOSHY) When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the parties that an identical Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.33857 of 2023 has already been allowed and disposed of uide order, dated 15.12.2023. 2. In view of the fact that tJle identical matter has already been allowed by this Court, we are inclined to allow this Writ Petition in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.33857 of 2023 decided on 15.12.2023 on similar terms. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/-C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fL SECTION OFFICER The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, lncome Tax Department, Union of lndia' The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi' The Assessment Officer, lncome Tax Department Ward I (1), Hyderabad One CC to SRI L.RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s. SUNDARI R-PASUPATI' SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPT' loPUCl One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dv SOL.IgITOR GEN OF INDIA' iigh C.r; r.r. il-'e Siate of Telangana at Hyderabad IOPUC] Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of order dated 15.12.2023, in w P'No'33857 ot 20231 I To, 1 2 3 4 7 6 BSR ae +^ I i HIGH COURT PSK, J & NTR, J DATED: 0510112024 ORDER WP.No.102 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS D vq qr*':t * JAli 2024 $E STA r4: q o o t) v Z ESP,TC$ * D 25 B i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.33857 OF 2023 ORDER:@er t'{on'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) 1. Heard Mr.T.Pradyoth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Mukharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Gadi, Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor Ceneral of India, for respondent No.1 and Ms.Sundari R. Pasupathi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 to 5. 2. The present is a writ petition which has been fited questioning the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seekrng for a stay of the demand notice raised pursuant to the assessment order dated Ol.O2.2O2l which has becn deciclecl in terrns of the Circular dated 31 .O7.2017 and the petitioncr has bccn clire ctcd to pay 2Oo/o of the disputed demand. 3. The present writ petition has been filed primarill' relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principte Commissioner of Income Tax a. LG Electronics India Priuate Limitedr.In the said case, the learnt:d Additional (20r8) 18 SCC 447 2 Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Income Tax Department itself has made a statement before the Hon,ble Supreme Court that the administrative circular will not oDerate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a ouasl-rudicial authoritv. It was clarihed bv the Hon'ble Su reme Court that in all cases like the Dresent. it will be oDen to the authorities, on the facts of individual cases, to qrant deposit orders of a lesser amount tb.an 2Oo/o. pendine the apoeal. 4. In the teeth of the said order, the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 under challenge in this writ petition does not seem to be appropriate, tegal or justified. The authority concerned had the discretion to pass appropriate order in the given factual circumstances of the appeal which was pending before the authorities concerncd. The authority concerned could not have in a mechanical manner relied upon the circular dated 31.O7.2017 while passing the said order. We are of the considered opinion therefore, the said impugned order is not sustainable and the serrne cleserves to be and accordingly set aside/quashed eind tlre rnatter stands remitted back to the 4tr, respondent for a frcsh consicleration of the interim application that has been filccl b.v the petitioner. It is expected by the authority concernccl that zrn .rppropriate decision to be taken at T the earliest. Before taking a decision, the authority concerned may also grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 5. Considering the fact that considerable time has already lapsed-, the let the petitioner appear before the concerned authority for personal hearing on the 28' 12'2023' There shall be no further requirement of any issuance of notice for personal hearing of the petitioner' The assessing authority shall after due hearing being provided to the petitioner pass appropriate orders' 6. Accorclingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of' 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petitiorr, shall stand closed' No order as to costs' P.SAM KOSHY' J N. TUKARAMJI, J 15.12.2023 Aq-s "