Case LawHigh Court › Wp/9049/2012 Of M/S. United Breweries Li...

Wp/9049/2012 Of M/S. United Breweries Limited v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 07 Nov 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/9049/2012 Of M/S. United Breweries Limited v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
07 Nov 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp/9049/2012 Of M/S. United Breweries Limited v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.

Issue: After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and afterperusing the material filed before us, the whole issue in this caseis whether the payee has paid the tax or not.

Decision: Under the aforesaid circumstances, we direct respondentNo.4 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Visakhapatnam,before whom the appeals are pending, to examine whether thepayee has paid/deposited the tax or not.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.9049 of 2012 Date: 07.11.2013 Between: United Breweries Limited (Formerly UnitedMillennium Breweries Limited), Bangalore and itsBrewery at Bantupalli village . .....Petitioner AND Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam and others. ...Respondents HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.9049 of 2012 ORDER:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ, direction ororder especially in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring thecommunication dated 26.03.2012 issued by respondent No.1 to thepetitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary and unlawful and consequentlyset aside the same and grant stay of all further proceedingspursuant to the order dated 23.09.2010 passed by respondent No.1under Sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for theassessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 during thependency of the appeals filed against the same by the petitionerbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I,Visakhapatnam. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and afterperusing the material filed before us, the whole issue in this caseis whether the payee has paid the tax or not. It is the contention ofthe learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that the payee has paidthe tax. Therefore, there is no question of depositing or makingpayment by the writ petitioner once again and the appeals could beheard out. Learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearingfor the respondents, however, says that there is no proof ofpayment of tax by the payee. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we direct respondentNo.4 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Visakhapatnam,before whom the appeals are pending, to examine whether thepayee has paid/deposited the tax or not. The writ petitioner shall produce necessary proof in respect thereof. After examining thesame, if it is found that the tax has been paid by the payee, thepending appeals shall be heard out. The entire exercise shall becompleted within a period of two months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. Till such decision is rendered regardingpayment of tax by the payee, the interim order passed by thisCourt will continue. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposedo f . Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also standdisposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________ 07.11.2013 Gsn SANJAY KUMAR, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan