Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. LudhianA. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1090679
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-12-2013
AppellantMahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. LudhianA.
RespondentThe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Excerpt:
civil writ petition no.6076 of 1992 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil writ petition no.6076 of 1992 date of order: 12.09.2013 mahavir spinning mills ltd., ludhiana...petitioner versus the deputy commissioner of income tax, special range, ludhiana and another..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice rajive bhalla hon'ble mr.justice mehinder singh sullar present: mr.aalok mittal, advocate for the petitioner. mr.rajesh katoch, advocate, for the respondents rajive bhalla, j (oral) the petitioner, challenge vires of section 143(1)(a) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').order/intimation dated 24.01.1992, issued by the deputy commissioner of income tax and order dated 11.03.1992, passed under section 154 of the act, directing the petitioner to deposit rs.65,17,964/- as further income tax and additional income tax under section (1a) of section 143 of the act etc.counsel for the petitioner submits that “additional income tax”. and “further income tax”. was demanded on account of purchase and sale of units of the unit trust of india. the units were sold at a loss. the department construed this transaction kumar naresh n201309.23 13:00 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil writ petition no.6076 of 1992 -2- as speculative by considering units as shares of a company. it is further submitted that the issue in hand is covered by judgment of the hon'ble supreme court of india in apollo typres ltd.v.commissioner of income tax, (2002) 174 ctr (sc) 521 and a judgment of this court in swaraj mazda ltd.& anr.v.deputy commissioner of income tax & anr. (1992) 105 ctr(p&h) 109, the writ petition may be allowed. counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant should be relegated to his alternative remedy, as no special reasons exist as would entitle the appellant to invoke jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india. it is further submitted that even if it is accepted that controvers.is covered in favour of the appellant, it is for the appellant to raise such a plea before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. we have heard counsel for the parties. the petitioner has filed this writ petition, primarily to challenge the vires of section 143(1)(a) of the act. challenge to the assessment order was only incident. the vires of section 143(1)(a) of the act have ,admittedly, been affirmed. the appellant is, therefore, required to avail its alternative remedy against the assessment order, in accordance with law. the appellant's plea that controvers.in the present petition is covered in its favour by the aforesaid judgments, can be validly kumar naresh n201309.23 13:00 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil writ petition no.6076 of 1992 -3- urged before the appropriate forum. even otherwise, determination of the dispute would not merely depend upon these judgments but would also require the authority concerned to appraise disputed questions of fact. in this view of the matter, we dispose of the petition by relegating the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy. delay, if any, shall be considered sympathetically in view of pendency of the writ petition. (rajive bhalla) judge september 12, 2013 (mehinder singh sullar) nt judge kumar naresh n201309.23 13:00 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

Civil Writ Petition No.6076 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6076 of 1992 Date of Order: 12.09.2013 Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd., Ludhiana...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Ludhiana and another..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Aalok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the respondents RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner, challenge vires of Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').order/intimation dated 24.01.1992, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and order dated 11.03.1992, passed under Section 154 of the Act, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.65,17,964/- as further income tax and additional income tax under Section (1A) of Section 143 of the Act etc.Counsel for the petitioner submits that “additional income tax”.

and “further income tax”.

was demanded on account of purchase and sale of units of the Unit Trust of India.

The units were sold at a loss.

The department construed this transaction Kumar Naresh N201309.23 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.6076 of 1992 -2- as speculative by considering units as shares of a company.

It is further submitted that the issue in hand is covered by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Apollo Typres Ltd.v.Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 174 CTR (SC) 521 and a judgment of this Court in Swaraj Mazda LTD.& Anr.v.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

(1992) 105 CTR(P&H) 109, the writ petition may be allowed.

Counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant should be relegated to his alternative remedy, as no special reasons exist as would entitle the appellant to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is further submitted that even if it is accepted that controveRs.is covered in favour of the appellant, it is for the appellant to raise such a plea before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

We have heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, primarily to challenge the vires of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

Challenge to the assessment order was only incident.

The vires of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act have ,admittedly, been affirmed.

The appellant is, therefore, required to avail its alternative remedy against the assessment order, in accordance with law.

The appellant's plea that controveRs.in the present petition is covered in its favour by the aforesaid judgments, can be validly Kumar Naresh N201309.23 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.6076 of 1992 -3- urged before the appropriate forum.

Even otherwise, determination of the dispute would not merely depend upon these judgments but would also require the authority concerned to appraise disputed questions of fact.

In this view of the matter, we dispose of the petition by relegating the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy.

Delay, if any, shall be considered sympathetically in view of pendency of the writ petition.

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE September 12, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) nt JUDGE Kumar Naresh N201309.23 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh