Wa/16492/2011 Of M/S Polyflex (India) Pvt Ltd v. The Director General Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO W.A. Nos.16492-94/2011 BETWEEN : M/S. POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,16, BOMMASANDRA INDL. AREA,ANEKAL TALUK,BANGALORE,REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,SRI U.N. BALRAM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. (BY SRI M/S. K.R. PRASAD, ASHOK A. KULKARNI, GOPALAKRISHNA RAO,GANESH R. GHALE AND SIDDAREDDY K.G., ADVOCATES) APPELLANT AND : 1.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX, (INV.)CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE.CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE. 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1),CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING ANNEXE,CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1),CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING ANNEXE, QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE – 560 001. ( BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, CGSC) RESPONDENTS THESE W.As. ARE FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.13426-28/2010(T-IT) DATED 28/01/2011 AND R.P.NO.133/2011 DATED 7/9/201. These appeals are coming on for admission this day, SREEDHAR RAO, J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT The restriction filed by the petitioner is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is grievance of the petitioner that there are three factual incorrect observations made in the order of the learned Single Judge. 1) There is a mention that the demand notice is issued, but no such demand notice is issued. 2) There is mention that the petitioner had filed SLP before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has ordered for payment of interest U/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act. The petitioner had filed appeal, but the Supreme Court has not made mention about the payment of interest. 3) It is observed that the order passed U/s 115(J) is affirmed by the Supreme Court and that is factually incorrect. 2.The said factual incorrect observations should have been got removed by way of review. The Appellant did file review but no orders are passed in that regard. However, it is held that the petitioner can avail remedy as per para 8 of the petition. If there are incorrect observations contrary to the record, the first respondent need not be influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. Sd/-JUDGESd/-JUDGE NM*