M/S. Ulhas Jewels v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji And Anr
High Court
29 Sep 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcbgoa
Parties
M/S. Ulhas Jewels v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji And Anr
Date of order
29 Sep 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In M/S. Ulhas Jewels v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji And Anr, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 905 OF 2016
M/S. ULHAS JEWELS.,
... Petitioner
VersusPR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI AND ANR., ... Respondents
Shri D. E. Robinson, Advocate for the petitioner.Ms. A. Desai and Ms. S. Samant, Advocates for the respondents.
-Coram:F. M. REIS &NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.-Date:29th September, 2016
P.C.
Heard.
2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitionerand the respondent, it is undisputed that a substantive remedychallenging the subject assessment is pending before theCIT(Appeals). Shri D. E. Robinson, learned Counsel appearing forthe petitioner however points out that the order passed by thePrincipal Commissioner is devoid of any reasons and as such,interference of this Court is called for in the present petition. However, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/revenue hassubmitted that as substantive appeal is already pending before theCIT(Appeal) the petitioner can avail of the remedy of filing anapplication in such appeal to seek interim relief and raise all thesecontentions.
3. As the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy, we findthat interference of this Court in the present Writ Petition underArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India would not at allbe justified. Reserving the right of the petitioner to avail of suchalternate remedy in the light of the observations made herein above,we disposed off the above petition.
4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner be granted interim protection, as accordingto him, the petitioner is called upon to deposit an amount in term ofthe subject assessment by tomorrow. Ms. A. Desai, learned Counselappearing for the respondents/revenue however submits that in thepeculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents/revenueshall not take coercive action until Monday.
5. Petition stands accordingly disposed off.
vn
NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.
F. M. REIS, J.
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.