Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Garware Polyester vs. State (Bombay High Court)

Garware Polyester vs. State (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 23, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (garware_contempt_court.pdf)

Failure to follow High Court’s order is contempt of court

The AO passed an assessment order in which he declined to follow the judgement of the Bombay High Court in CST vs. Pee Vee Textiles 26 VST 281 on the ground that the said judgement “is not accepted by the Sales Tax Department and legal proceeding is initiated against the said judgment”. On a Writ Petition filed by the assessee, the High Court has taken the view that as the said judgement in Pee Vee Textiles is not stayed, “the refusal to follow and implement the judgment of this Court by Mr.Dubey in our considered view prima facie amounts to contempt of this Court”. The Court directed issue of a show-cause notice to the AO as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him.

Note: In Kamalakshi Finance Corporation 53 ELT 433 (SC), ITO vs. Siemens India 156 ITR 11 (Bom) & Bank of Baroda vs. Srivastava 122 TM 330 (Bom) it was held that even the Tribunal’s order is binding on the AO. See Also Mercedes Benz vs. UOI (Bom) on the importance of judicial discipline.

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Scindia HUF (Bombay High Court) 

    The issue of notice under s. 16 (2) W. T. Act {s. 143 (2) I. T. Act} is mandatory for reassessment proceedings. If notice u/s 16 (2) {143 (2)} is not issued, the assessment order passed u/s 17 {s. 147} is not valid.Read more ›
  2. CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases (Delhi High Court) 

    Where the department had not disputed that the expenditure was deductible in principle but was only disputing the year in which the deduction could be allowed HELD, castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies…
  3. Soul vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) 

    Though Instruction No. 1914 dated 2nd Dec 1993 supercedes Instruction No. 96 dated 21st August 1969, it clearly provides that demand should be stayed in “exceptional circumstances e.g., where the assessment order appears to be unreasonably high-pitched or where genuine hardship is likely to be caused to the assessee”….
  4. Snowcem vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Where an assessment is made u/s 115JA of the Act, an assessee is not liable to pay interest for non-payment/shortfall of advance tax u/ss 234B and 234C of the Act. CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd 284 ITR 434 (SC) followed;
    Read more ›
  5. CIT vs. Tony Electronics (Delhi High Court) 

    Under the Doctrine of Merger, once an appeal against the order passed by an authority is preferred and is decided by the appellate authority, the order of the said authority merges into the order of the appellate authority. With this merger, the order of the original authority ceases to…