Disposed

M/s.Balaji Suppliers v. Union of India and 2 others

Telangana HC16 Oct 2023WP/30337/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider a pending appeal filed in 2019 within six months, noting a delay of over three years, by virtue of Article 226 for violating principles of natural justice and delays.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the pending appeal within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

M/s.Balaji Suppliers Vs Union of India and 2 others — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 30337 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

lr//s. Balaji Suppliers, No.4-4-156, Mahankali Street, Secunderabad -500003 Rep by its Partner Mrs.Sarang Vanaja.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, Rep by Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.

¶12

lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Hyderabad.

¶13

Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre New Delhi, Delhi - 110002.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not adjudicating the appeal filed by the Petitioner with appeal no. CIT (A), Hyderaba d-611O47612O19-20 for the AY 2012-13 even after a lapse of 2 /z years as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violative of Articte 14 and provisions of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent.to dispose of the appeal of the Petitioner in a time bound manner by giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

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 pleasedto} direct the Respondents not to take any steps,^{including stepsto recoverthe tax} and penalty,^pursuant to assessment order dt.31l12l2}1g^{and penalty order} dr.o3l03l2022.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAILASH NATH.P.S.S.

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI B.MUKHERJEE, SC, REP. FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 & 3: M/s. B.SAPNA^{REDDY, SC, REP. FOR} SRI J.V.PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I I

¶23

I I

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶25

Writ Petition No.3O337 of 2022

¶26

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSI{Y)

¶27

The limited relief that the petitioner seeks in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the appeal hled by the petitioner, vrz., CIT(A), Hyderabad6l10476/20 19-20, dated 23.O1 .2021, before the 3.d respondentCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

¶28

Heard Mr. Kailash Nath P.S.S., learned counsel 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 l"t respondent; Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learrred Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶29

Though more than 3 )/z years have elapsed, the appeal preferred by the petitioner still stands undecided.

¶30

The present r,r'rit petition is filed in July, 2022 and is being taken up to-day in October, 2023, and more than 14 months have elapsed since then Even after filing of the present writ

¶31

¶32

¶33

petition, the appeal preferred by the petitioner does not seem to be taken up for consideration.

¶34

Accordingly, with the consent of parties, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed with a direction to the 3.d respondent to take appropriate steps in ensuring that the appeal preferred by the petitioner viz., CIT(A), Hyderabad_ 6/10476/2O19-20, dated 23.O1.2021, be considered on its own merits in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of six (O6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to ensure that the order passed by this Court in this writ petition be uploaded on the National Faceless portal of the Income Tax Department.

¶36

7 With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶37

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶38

sha1l stand closed.

¶39

I \

¶40

nssrsiiffiAYrSiSaEE //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To, SECTION OFFICER 1 I:ihi:3;'i3l'#',#ill",^{or Finance, Deptof Revenue,North Block,} New

¶42

¶43

The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Hyderabad.

¶44

The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre New Delhi, Delhi - I10002.

¶45

One CC to SRI KAILASH NATH.P.S.S., Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to SRI J.V.PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX [OPUC]

¶47

One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDIA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

¶48

Two CD Copies

BSR

GJP

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1611012023

ORDER

WP.No.30337 of 2022

;,Ie STATE
(
)
'i : ilttl ?rlZi fr
o
..'<br>t
:o

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,
WITHOUT COSTS
t"\ />
{o

¶59

WITHOUT COSTS

M/s.Balaji Suppliers v. Union of India and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Balaji Suppliers v. Union of India and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Aziz Qureshi Hyderabad Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department

The Managing Director Vs Mr. Purimigalla Veeranagaiah

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (Nekrtc) Vs Kodali Rani , Leela Rani

Gvk Transportation Private Limited Vs Union of India

Hill County Properties Limited Vs Union of India

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs M/s.Zenotech Laboratories Limited