No Formal Notice to Income Tax Dept in High Court Hearing: Supreme Court allows Petitioner to Raise Jurisdictional Error w.r.t. Limitation Period [Read Order]

The Supreme Court has allowed a petitioner to raise the issue of jurisdictional error vis-à-vis limitation period, as a formal notice of hearing was not issued to the Income Tax Department standing counsel in spite of being present at the court.

The case arises from the final judgment and order dated 19-10-2023 in WP(C) No. 13844/2023 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

The Two-Judge Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the matter.

For the petitioner, Anuradha Bakshi, the legal team was led by Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate, supported by Giriraj Subramanium, Akhilesh Talluri, Joy Banerjee, Veda Singh, Aditya Singh, and Simarpal Sawhney.

During the hearing, Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioner, raised a crucial point. It was revealed that the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 was issued without a formal notice to the respondent-Department or a call for response, despite the presence of the standing counsel for the Department in court.

The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, disposed of the special leave petition while reserving the liberty for the petitioner, Anuradha Bakshi, to contest the jurisdictional error concerning the limitation period before the appropriate authority.

It was held that, “In the circumstances, we dispose of this special leave petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to raise the contentions regarding the jurisdictional error vis-a-vis the limitation period before the appropriate authority despite the impugned order being passed as against the petitioner herein. The reason for saying so is because the High Court had passed the impugned order without having the benefit of the response of the respondent-Department.

Further, it was stated that, “In the circumstances, it is needless to observe that if such a contention is raised before the appropriate authority, respondentDepartment shall be entitled to make its submissions on the pertinent points to be raised by the petitioner herein.”

It was further added by the two-judge Apex Court Bench that, ”Since we are permitting the petitioner to raise the point regarding jurisdictional error in the context of limitation period, the appropriate authority before whom such a point is raised may not be influenced by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.”

The case is now set to proceed with the petitioner having the opportunity to contest jurisdictional errors.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates