Case Law Details
Sapna Flour Mills Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors (Supreme Court of India)
Introduction: In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has issued an order in the case of Sapna Flour Mills Ltd vs. Union of India & Others. The matter had been remitted to the Assessing Authority to allow the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. However, certain constitutional validity and jurisdictional issues under the Income Tax Act, 1961 were raised in the writ petition. This article provides insights into the Supreme Court’s order and its implications for Sapna Flour Mills Ltd.
Detailed Analysis: The Supreme Court’s order acknowledges that the matter had been remitted to the Assessing Authority to provide the petitioner, Sapna Flour Mills Ltd, with a chance to present their case. However, it is noted that the writ petition had raised important contentions concerning the constitutional validity of Section 144-B(9) and the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These contentions were a source of grievance for the petitioner, leading to the filing of this special leave petition.
The Supreme Court’s decision, in this case, takes into account the ongoing proceedings at the Assessing Authority level, which are to be considered on their merits. In light of this, the Supreme Court disposes of the Special Leave Petition. Importantly, the petitioner is granted the liberty to revive this petition in the future if they are unsuccessful before the statutory authorities. This means that if the petitioner’s case does not proceed favorably at the lower levels, they have the option to return to the Supreme Court to raise the constitutional and jurisdictional contentions that were the basis of this special leave petition.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s order in Sapna Flour Mills Ltd vs. Union of India & Others represents a pragmatic approach to legal proceedings. By disposing of the special leave petition but reserving liberty for the petitioner to revive it if necessary, the Court allows the petitioner to first pursue their case at the Assessing Authority level. If the need arises, the petitioner can return to the Supreme Court to address the constitutional and jurisdictional issues raised in the initial petition. This approach ensures a fair and comprehensive consideration of the matter, respecting the principles of due process and legal recourse.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the matter has been remitted in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain contentions touching upon the constitutional validity of Section 144-B(9) as well as the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were raised in the writ petition and being aggrieved by the impugned order, this special leave petition has been filed.
We note that since the matter has been remitted to the Assessing Authority to be considered on merits, we dispose of this Special Leave Petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to revive this petition in the event the petitioner is unsuccessful before the statutory authorities so as to raise the contentions raised in this special leave petition on the other aspects of the matter.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
