SURFACE COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

WPO/185/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Surface Commercial Private Limited and another petitioner against the Union of India and others, concerning a dispute over the service of a notice by the Income-tax Authorities. The petitioners argued that the notice was not served at the correct address, leading to an erroneous attachment order by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Income-tax Authorities contended that the notice was properly served. The High Court decided not to delve into the factual disputes due to the need for evidence and factual appreciation, which is not suitable for a writ petition at this stage. Instead, it directed the Income-tax Authorities to address the petitioners' concerns and allowed the petitioners to seek redress in a criminal forum.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 723427 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Code of Criminal Procedure, Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SMARAJIT CHOWDHURY; MANABENDRA BANDYOPADHYAY
• Assessee Lawyers: RUDRAJIT SARKAR; DEBANGSHU DINDA
• Keywords: Attachment Order; Income Tax; Representation; Writ petition; Faulty service of notice
• Section: 200; 276CC; 278P

Judgement Text

"OD 9 ORDER SHEET WPO 185 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE SURFACE COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA Date: 22nd April, 2021. (Via Video Conference) Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Mr. Debangshu Dinda, Advs. …for petitioners Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Manabendra Bandyopadhyay, Advs. …for the respondents The Court: Upon hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it appears that the scope of the writ petition is limited. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Authorities contends that the matter does not pertain to Group-IX of the classification of Writs but is a revenue matter. However, in view of the innocuous nature of the order proposed to be passed, the matter is not being relegated to the regular Bench, which will unnecessarily prolong the proceeding on technical ground. The petitioners contend that the Income-tax Authorities, without service of a notice in accordance with law at the proper address of the petitioners, initiated a proceeding under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on charges as contemplated in Sections 276CC and 278P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel 2 places reliance on communications made by the Authorities themselves, which initially indicated that notice was served at a wrong address but subsequently sought to rectify such admission by contending that the notice was affixed at the proper address. The petitioners’ grievance is that, pursuant to such faulty service of notice, the Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the matter was pending erroneously proceeded and passed an order of attachment. The petitioners have already given a representation in that regard to the Income- tax Authorities, which is annexed at page 32 of the writ petition. However, no action was taken by the Authorities on such representation to consider the above grievance. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent /Income-tax Authorities denies the allegation that notice was not served at the proper address of the petitioners. Be that as it may, since the dispute involved requires factual appreciation and production of relevant material evidence, which have to be assessed to come to a finding, the Writ Court is not the proper forum to decide such an issue, that too, at this belated stage after an attachment order has been passed by the Magistrate. Accordingly, WPO 185 of 2021 is disposed of by directing respondent nos. 2,3 and 5 to consider and decide on the representation/notice for demand of justice of the petitioners, annexed at page 32 of the writ petition, and communicate their decision to the petitioners. The entire process ought to be completed within a month from date. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Criminal forum, challenging the proceedings and the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in CS Case No. 7959 of 1990 passed on a complaint under Section 200 of the 3 Code of Criminal Procedure. If such a challenge is preferred, the appropriate Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law without being prejudiced in any manner by any of the observations made herein. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.) TR/ "