2021 (2) TMI 136 - HC - Income Tax

Pre- deposit of 20% - HELD THAT - We are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal. The petitioner may prosecute its appeal before the appellate authority in accordance with law. As far as the order of pre-deposit is concerned, the petitioner tried to contend and demonstrate that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity in as much as sufficient time was not given to the petitioner to place on record its say and the documents to be relied upon and the assessment order was passed in haste. Of course, it is the contention of the petitioner which the appellate authority will have to consider as per the record and the material placed before it. It appears that the notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.12.2019. It is case of the petitioner that the same was received on 16.12.2019 and the information was to be furnished on 17.12.2019. The assessment order was passed on 22.12.2019. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, we pass the following order - The order of the appellate authority directing the petitioner to deposit 20% amount as pre-deposit is modified. The petitioner shall deposit 10% of its liability amount pursuant to the assessment as pre-deposit.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment order and order directing pre-deposit

Challenge to Assessment Order:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order and the order directing pre-deposit. The petitioner's counsel argued that the assessment order was in breach of natural justice principles, citing the Vodafone India Limited case. It was contended that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, with only 24 hours provided. The counsel argued that the appellate authority should have waived the pre-deposit due to lack of proper opportunity. Reference was made to the Benera Valves Ltd. case, emphasizing that the appellate authority has discretion in determining pre-deposit amounts.

Order Directing Pre-Deposit:
The Revenue's counsel argued that the petitioner did not cooperate during the assessment proceedings, justifying the order to deposit 20% of the amount. However, the petitioner's counsel highlighted that some amount had already been recovered by the Revenue after the appeal was filed. The court noted that the petitioner had already availed the remedy of appeal against the assessment order and directed the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the appellate authority. Regarding the order of pre-deposit, the petitioner contended that insufficient time was given to present their case and documents, leading to a hasty assessment order. The court modified the appellate authority's order, reducing the pre-deposit amount from 20% to 10% of the liability amount.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay modified the order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the liability amount as pre-deposit to 10%. The court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner should pursue its appeal before the appellate authority. The judgment highlighted the importance of affording parties sufficient opportunity and the discretion of the appellate authority in determining pre-deposit amounts.