Dismissed

M/s.Standard Tyres and Motors, Vijayawada, v. The Commissioner of Income tax, Vijayawada.

Telangana HC8 Jul 2014WP/25383/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a proforma order under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998. The court held the petition was infructuous as the implied rejection of the application arose from the petitioner's failure to pay the stipulated tax amount within the prescribed time, rendering them ineligible for the Scheme's benefits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs was passed.

M/s.Standard Tyres and Motors, Vijayawada, Vs The Commissioner… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

Writ Petition No.25383 of 1999

¶4

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶5

The petitioner is a Partnership Firm and is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). In relation to the assessment year 1987-88, the Income Tax Officer passed an order fastening certain liability. The matter was carried in appeal, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada, the 1^st respondent herein, where partial relief was granted to the petitioner. While the Department filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by the relief granted to the petitioner, a cross appeal was filed by the petitioner to the extent the relief was denied to it, by the appellate authority.

¶6

When both the appeals were pending before the Tribunal, the Parliament introduced a ‘Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998’. It provided for termination of such proceedings pending at whatever level, on payment of the amount stipulated under the relevant provisions.

¶7

The petitioner submitted an application in Form-1A, before the 1^st respondent, and paid a sum of Rs.7,535/-. Through a proforma order, dated 23.02.1999, the 1^st respondent informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.1,59,242/- is payable. The arrears of tax, vis-à-vis the petitioner was shown as Rs.4,54,978/-. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶8

It is urged that when the application is filed with reference to the liability, which is the subject-matter of an appeal preferred by the petitioner, there was no basis for the 1^st respondent in proceeding with the application as well as the appeal filed by the Department.

¶9

Counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit are filed by the Department. According to them, the benefit under the Scheme is always with reference to a pending proceeding, and if the petitioner intended to terminate just the appeal preferred by it and offered to pay the tax, it cannot seek the benefit of termination of the appeal preferred by the Department.

¶10

Heard Sri Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶11

The petitioner, no doubt, paid the amount referable to the subject-matter of the appeal preferred by it. However, by the date he filed the application, the appeal filed by the Department was also pending. Reference to both the appeals was made in Column I, in the proforma application.

¶12

Various aspects urged by the parties in this case, do not deserve deep consideration, at this stage. The reason is that the application of the petitioner stood rejected impliedly, since it did not pay the amount indicated within the stipulated time, nor any interim order was passed by this Court. The result is that the petitioner became ineligible to avail the benefit under the Scheme.

¶13

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.

¶15

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶16

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

¶17

Date:08.07.2014

¶18

M/s.Standard Tyres and Motors, Vijayawada, v. The Commissioner of Income tax, Vijayawada.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Standard Tyres and Motors, Vijayawada, v. The Commissioner of Income tax, Vijayawada.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P.S.(C.R.I.C.Ltd) Co-Op Rural Irrigation Croporation Ltd. Vs a. Giri Prasad

T.Mallesham Vs Apsrtc., rep.by its Managing Director

Mr. J. Papaiah Vs A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

Akbar Sha, Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

R. Damodar Reddy Vs The Commissioner of Income-tax

Acc Refractories ltd., Vs Union of India