Allowed

Gvk Transportation Private Limited v. Union of India

Telangana HC16 Oct 2023WP/27338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Income Tax reopening order. The court held that the notice was issued under the unamended Section 148 instead of the mandatory Section 148A with a hearing opportunity, making it liable to be quashed. The court reserved other objections for a separate proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed on the objection that the proceedings were drawn under the unamended provision of Section 148 instead of the amended Section 148A with necessary hearing.

Gvk Transportation Private Limited Vs Union of India — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:27338 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

GVK Transportation Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 156-1 59, Paigah House, Sardar Patel Road, Paradise, Secunderabad- 500 003, Telangana, lndia, represented by its Director, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, S/o. Madan Gopal Singh, aged about 59^years, Rl/o. Flat No. 209, Shreya Towers, Sree^Vensai Pdect, Kompally, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶10

...pETt,oNER

¶11

AND

¶12

Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary, Department of^{Revenue, Ministry} of Finance, North Block, New Delhi^-1 10001^.

¶13

Additional/ JoinV Deputyi Assistant Commissioner of lncome^{Tax, National} Faceless e-Assessment Centre, Delhi.

¶14

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle^2('l ), Room No.^{q14,5th Floor,} Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally^(M), Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084.

¶15

...REspoNDENTS

¶16

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, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the order bearing DIN No.^{ITBA/AST/F/148412022-} 2311042955243(1) dated 05-05-2022 and consequent^{notice bearing DIN No.} ITBA/AST/S/148_112022-2311042955504(1) dated O5-O5-2O22^{passed by} Respondent No. 3 as being barred by limitation, arbitrary, illegal, without^authority of law and violative of^provisions of lncome Tax Act, 1961 and^{consequentlyset} aside the same

¶17

.;-a

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice bearing DIN No. lTBfu AST/S/ 148_112022-2311042955504(1) dated 05-05-2022 issued by Respondent No. 3 u/s.^'148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023:

¶21

Between:

¶22

'1 . 4dditional/ JoinU Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, National Faceless e-Assessment Centre, Delhi.

¶23

Deputy Commissioner of lncorne Tax, Circle 2(1), Room No. 514, 5th Floor, Qignalurg^{T.ow91s,Sy. No 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(p) of Koihaguda,'} Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy Oistrict,^" Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084.

¶24

....PEITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3

¶25

AND

¶26

1 GVK Transportation Private Limited, 156-i 59,^paigah House, Sardar patel Road, Paradise, Secunderabad- 500 003, represent6d by its Diiector.

¶27

2 U-nion of tndia, reptesented by-its Secret"ry, o"p"rtrEIi:PI3rt"#i":'illi?S,t^i of Finance' North Block' New Delhi -' t ooo''...*.''.NDENT/RES'.NDENT

¶28

No. 1

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 2910612022 in l.A. No. 1 of 2022 inW.p. No.27338 of 2022 as extended from time to iime and dismiss the present writ petition in W.P. No. 27 338 of 2022 with costs

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAGA DEEPAK, COUNSEL FOR

¶31

M/s. R. S. ASSOCIATES

¶32

Counsel forRespondent No.'l: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, COUNSEL FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDlA

¶33

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, COUNSEL FOR

¶34

Ms. K. MAMATA, SR. SC FOR TNCOME TAX

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

.,7 'i,.'

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶38

AND

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶40

W.P.No.27338 of 2022

¶41

ORDER: (per Hoa'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHfi)

¶42

Heard Mr. Naga Deepak, learned counsel representing M/s. R.S. Associates, for the petitioner; Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India, for the 1"t respondent; and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing on behalf of Ms. K. Mamata, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire record.

¶43

2, The instant writ petition has been liled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated O5.O5.2O22 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST /F 1148A/20222311042955243(1) issued under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act (for short, "the Act") and also the notice dated o5.O5.2O22 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST lS / 148_! /20222311042955504(2) under Section 148 of the Act by the lst respondent for the Assessment Year 2Ol8-19.

¶44

One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect frorn OI .O4 .2021, tlre respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice

¶45

¶46

under Section 148A and provide an opportunit5r of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner.

¶47

Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. The Income Tax OIIicer and othersr wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent.

¶48

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the saici objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections aiso which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition.

¶49

So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph No.37 which is reproduced herein under:

¶50

"37. The preliminary objection raised. bg the petttioner is sustained and all these urit petitions stands allowed. on is uery Jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders qre

¶51

'^wP.No.2s9o3 of 2022 & batch dated 14.09.2023, (D.8.)

\ \

gelting quashed on the point of juisdictio4 ue are not incltned. to proceed further dnd decide th", other issues raised bg tle petitioner which stands reserued to be raised and contend.ed" in an appropiate proceeding s. "

¶57

In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable.

¶58

As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph No.37 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs.

¶59

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶60

SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSISTANUTEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I q SECTION OFFICER

¶61

To, 1. The Secretary, Department^{of Revenue'tVlinistry of Finance, Unionof lnida,} North Block, New Delhi^{-'1 10001.}

¶62

fhe Additional/ Joinu^{Deputy/ Assistant Commissionerof lncome Tax,} National Faceless e-Assessment^{Centre,Delhi.}

¶63

e. ffre Oeputy Commissioner^{of lncome Tax, Circle 2(f, Room N.o.514,Sth} - Fioor Sionature Towers. Sv. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No' 37(P) of t<othaquda, Opp. Botanical-Gardens'^{Serilingampally(M)' Ranga Reddy} District, Hyderabad, Telangana^{- 500084.}

¶64