Sri Radhakrishna Multiple Industries P LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner St

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Radhakrishna Multiple Industries Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), to pass a revised order for the assessment year 2021-22. This request was based on a previous order of the High Court in W.P.(MD).No.27792 to 27796 of 2023, dated 05.06.2024. In the earlier writ petitions, the Court had set aside assessment orders for the assessment year 2017-18 and remitted the case back to the respondent. The remission was subject to the petitioner filing a reply to the notices and depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount within six months. The petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 within the stipulated six months. However, the deposit for the assessment year 2021-22 was made after the six-month period.

Held

The Court held that while the assessing officer was initially right in declining to pass a revised order for the assessment year 2021-22 due to the delayed deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount, the subsequent remittance by the petitioner and the extension of time granted by the Court's order dated 05.06.2024 should be treated as having made the deposit within time. The Court reasoned that the previous order directed the authority to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within six months, implying a flexible approach. Therefore, the respondent was directed to pass a revised order for the assessment year 2021-22 as expeditiously as possible. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount for the assessment year 2021-22, made after the expiry of the six-month period stipulated in the previous High Court order dated 05.06.2024, was made within time for the purpose of directing the respondent to pass a revised order. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent should pass a revised order for the assessment year 2021-22 as per the previous High Court order. While not explicitly stated in the judgment, the implication is that the petitioner believed their deposit should be considered timely or that the Court should extend leniency. Respondent's contention: The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), declined to pass a revised order for the assessment year 2021-22 because the 10% deposit was made after the six-month period. The respondent's approach was considered right by the assessing officer.