2022 (6) TMI 154 - HC - Income Tax

High Court rules for respondent in certificate cancellation case under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Stay granted.

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)

The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent in a case challenging the cancellation of certificates under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. ... Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act - opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- Department is justified in their submissions. Ext.P12 is only a notice granting an opportunity to the petitioner, pursuant to his own application for rectifying Form No.3. Though the 2nd respondent has observed that the rectification of errors in Form No.3 will require canceling the erroneous Form No.3 and issuing a corrected Form No.3, a decision has not been taken. On the other hand, an opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner. Even before a decision is taken, it is not proper for the petitioner to approach this Court challenging that opportunity being granted, especially since the same is pursuant to the request of the petitioner to rectify Form No.3. All contentions can be raised by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, we are of the view that the contentions of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated by this Court as raised in this writ petition and instead, the 2nd respondent ought to proceed with Ext.P12 and pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing the petitioner as mentioned in Ext.P12. Therefore, this writ writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice providing a fresh date of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders on Ext.P10 and Ext.P11, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Issues Involved:1. Challenge to cancellation of certificates issued under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.2. Quashing of notice issued by the respondent.3. Direction to consider and pass orders on applications submitted by the petitioner.4. Finalization of proceedings pursuant to certificates within a fixed time limit.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought relief against the 2nd respondent's attempt to cancel certificates issued under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The High Court directed all proceedings related to the matter to be stayed. The respondent argued that the notice issued was merely for a hearing and continuing it would not prejudice the petitioner. The Court found that the respondent's actions were justified as the notice was in response to the petitioner's own rectification applications. The Court held that challenging the notice at this stage was premature, and the petitioner should address concerns before the 2nd respondent.2. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from applications filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The 2nd respondent issued a notice granting a hearing regarding rectification of errors in Form No.3. The Court emphasized that the respondent's intention was to consider the petitioner's requests for rectification, and interfering at this stage would not serve the interest of justice. The Court directed the respondent to provide a fresh hearing date and pass orders on the applications within two months, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to present their case.3. The Court highlighted that the respondent's decision-making process regarding the rectification of errors in Form No.3 was still pending, and the petitioner should address concerns through the appropriate channels. The Court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the 2nd respondent to proceed with the matter and make a decision after hearing the petitioner. The Court emphasized that all contentions should be raised before the 2nd respondent, and premature challenges to the process were not appropriate.4. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, directing them to issue a fresh hearing notice and make a decision on the rectification applications within a specified timeframe. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the respondent to complete the decision-making process and advised the petitioner to address their concerns through the proper channels rather than seeking premature intervention from the Court.