Bombay H.C : The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the letter dt. June 9, 1988, issued to it by the Deputy CIT (Assessment), Special Range, Dehradun, for recovery of Rs. 5,69,11,730 being demand raised for the asst. yr. 1985-86 in the case of Micoperi S. P. A., Italy.

High Court Of Bombay

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Ors.

Section 220

Asst. Year 1985-86

T.D. Sugla, J.

Writ Petition No. 1906 of 1988

3rd August, 1990

Counsel Appeared
N. A. Dalvi with Soli Dastur i/b Kanga & Co., for the Petitioner: Dr. V. Balasubramanian with Mrs. Manjula Singh, for the RespondentsT. D. SUGLA, J. :

By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the letter dt. June 9, 1988, issued to it by the Deputy CIT (Assessment), Special Range, Dehradun, for recovery of Rs. 5,69,11,730 being demand raised for the asst. yr. 1985-86 in the case of Micoperi S. P. A., Italy.

It appears that, under an agreement entered into by the petitioner with Micoperi S.P.A, the tax liability of Micoperi S.P.A was undertaken by the petitioner-company and the above notice was issued by the Dy. CIT (Assessment) on that basis.

Shri Dalvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that, by an order of this Court dt. September 5, 1988, in Appeal No. 1049 of 1988 arising out of Writ Petition No. 1306 of 1988, the assessment in pursuance of which the said demand was raised and the petitioner was asked to make the payment was quashed. This Court also directed the Departmental authorities not to take any further steps for recovery of the tax and interest in pursuance of that assessment against Micoperi S.P.A or the petitioner. It is submitted that, in view thereof, the question of recovery of demand in pursuance of the assessment order which stands quashed does not arise against Micoperi S.P.A or the petitioner. Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Department, submits that, under the order of this Court, a fresh assessment was required to be made by the AO on Micoperi S.P.A for the same year at Bombay and that if any demand is created as a result of such an assessment, the Department should be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings against Micoperi S.P.A or the petitioner. Shri Dalvi has no objection to it subject to the condition that, in that case, the petitioner should have liberty to challenge any such order.

4. In view of what has been stated above, the question of recovering any amount in pursuance of the quashed assessment order from the petitioner does not arise. The rule is, accordingly, made absolute. No order as to costs.

[Citation : 189 ITR 325]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security