TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Similar controversy is involved in both the aforesaid writ petitions, therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are being decided by a common order treating Writ Tax No. 3047 of 2026 as leading case. Writ Tax No. 3047 of 2026 4. By means of present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:- (a) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.5.2026 passed by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure -11) for assessment year 2003-04 rejecting the stay application filed by the petitioner corporation. (b) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent no. 4 not to enforce recovery of demand created in con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7,61,910/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 72,74,31,518/- after making additions /disallowance to the claim made by the petitioner corporation in its return of income; thereafter a show cause notice for the F.Y. 2002-03 was issued to the petitioner corporation as to why it may not be treated as 'assessee in default' under Section 201 (1) of the Act for the failure of deduction of tax at source under Section 193 of the Act, on the alleged payment of interest on S.L.R. bonds made to various payees as also liable to pay interest under Section 201 (A) of the Act on such tax and thereafter a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner corporation on 20.3.2007. However not being satisfied with the same, the order dated 29.3.2007 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, respondent no. 3. On 21.3.2023, the appeal filed under Section 250 of the Act was rejected. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 26.12.2025 under Section 271 C of the Act and reply was submitted on 12.1.2026 stating that the penalty proceeding is time barred, still the order dated 30.3.2006 was passed imposing the penalty equivalent to the amount of alleged failure to deduct tax for the year under consideration i.e. Rs. 74,31,585/-. On 17.4.2026, the appeal was filed against the penalty order dated 30.3.2026 before the NFAC on 17.4.2026 but due to minor error in selection of relevant section from drop down menu of Form 35 etc. corrected Form 35 was filed on 19.4.2026. Thereaft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of the registration of the petitioner. The order of cancellation is in the teeth of various judgments of this Court as also referred to above. The reasons are heart and soul of any judicial and administrative order. In absence of the same the order cannot be justified in the eye of law. Further since the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay, this Court finds that the doctrine of merger will have no application considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In M/s Chandra Sain (supra) this Court has held as follows: 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that although no fault can be found with the appellate order dismissing the appeal as Aappellate Authority does not h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 13.02.2020, clearly there is no reason ascribed to take such a harsh action of cancellation of registration. In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure - 2) is set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed. 11. In Om Prakash Mishra (supra) this Court has held as follows: I am not inclined to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioner in so far as it relates to the appellate order dated 29.03.2022. However, I am inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner made against the order dated 15.03.2019. A perusal of the Annexure no.2, makes it clear....