2017 (9) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

Refund the tax demand along with interest as applicable under Section 244-A - Dispute Resolution Panel (D.R.P.) does not have the Corum - Held that - Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that D.R.P. has sufficient corum and they are of the opinion that the order of remand could not have been passed. However, this issue is for D.R.P. to deal with and not for this Court to adjudicate upon at this juncture in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A feeble attempt has been made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to state that arguments are to be advanced on merits of the matter. This would be impermissible in the light of the fact that this Court has already recorded as to what would be the scope of the direction to be issued in this Writ Petition while hearing the case on 07.07.2017. Thus there will be a direction to the first respondent/D.R.P. to finally decide the petitioner s application, filed before them, dated 28.09.2010, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of assessment proceedings and tax demand refund.
2. Direction for Dispute Resolution Panel (D.R.P.) to conclude proceedings.
3. Appointment of members in D.R.P.
4. Scope of court's adjudication on D.R.P.'s decisions.
5. Fixing a time frame for D.R.P. to dispose of the matter.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash assessment proceedings and refund a tax demand. The petitioner was willing to accept if the Dispute Resolution Panel (D.R.P.) concluded the proceedings within a stipulated time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had remanded the issues to the D.R.P. for further consideration, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to rectify the application. The court directed the D.R.P. to decide on the petitioner's application and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks, allowing the petitioner to raise all contentions before the D.R.P.

2. The matter was brought before the court, where the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents informed about the lack of members in the D.R.P., leading to a delay in the proceedings. Subsequently, the court directed the matter to be listed for further hearing. Upon subsequent hearings, the D.R.P. confirmed having sufficient members and disagreed with the remand order by the Tribunal. The court clarified that the issue of remand was within the D.R.P.'s jurisdiction, and the petitioner's request to argue on merits was deemed impermissible considering the court's previous directions.

3. The court emphasized the need for the D.R.P. to function effectively and promptly in deciding the petitioner's application, which had been pending since 2013. The court, therefore, issued a direction to the D.R.P. to finalize the petitioner's application and make decisions in accordance with the law within twelve weeks from the date of the court's order. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to present all factual and legal contentions before the D.R.P. for consideration.

4. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Writ Petition without any costs, highlighting the importance of timely resolution of tax-related disputes and the role of the D.R.P. in addressing such matters efficiently. The court's decision aimed to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution of the issues raised by the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures and principles in the assessment and resolution of tax matters.