The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur & Anr v. Uma Enterprises Private Limited

[1] DBSAC 23/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL(CIVIL) NO.23/2015INS.B. COMPANY PETITION NO.14/2012 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR & ANR.Vs.UMA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED DATE:12.10.2015 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT SINGH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the appellant. Mr. Gunjan Pathak, for the respondent. ***** This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated29.05.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court,whereby he has dismissed appellants' application for impleadment.Learned Single Judge has however given permission to the appellants toassist the Additional Solicitor General on the question whether thesanction of the scheme as sought from the Court is against publicinterest. The non-appellant-Company has filed de-merger applicationunder Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act to obtain sanction ofthe High Court in respect to the scheme of de-merger of Real EstateDivisions. The de-merged Company is proposed to be transferred to andvested in the resultant Companies nine in number. On receiving notice,the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs has submittedobjections on affidavit stating therein that the scheme is detrimental topublic interest and if sanctioned, it will cause a huge revenue loss to theIncome Tax Department. Not only this, the Regional Director even sent aletter to the appellant-Income Tax Department asking it to join theproceedings by becoming a party. The appellants, therefore, filed an [2] DBSAC 23/2015 application for impleadment as party in S.B. Company PetitionNo.14/2012, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by theimpugned order. It is not in dispute that there is no existing tax liability of theCompany. Also as already mentioned above, the learned Single Judge hasalready given liberty to the appellants to assist the Additional SolicitorGeneral on the question whether the sanction of the scheme as soughtfrom the Court is against public interest. Since, there is no existingliability against the Company, the appellants have no locus standi in thematter. We, therefore, find no illegality in the impugned order passed bythe learned Single Judge rejecting the appellants' application forimpleadment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J. (AJIT SINGH),ACTING C.J. /KKC/ Certificate: All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in thejudgment/order being emailed. KAMLESH KUMARP.A.