ACIT Vs Vahanvati Consultants Private Limited (Supreme Court of India)

ACIT Vs Vahanvati Consultants Private Limited (Supreme Court of India)

The Supreme Court of India has recently made a disposition in the case of ACIT (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) v. Vahanvati Consultants Private Limited. The court’s decision has specific implications for the parties involved, and this article will provide an overview of the case and the court’s actions.

Case Background:

The case involves Mr. Balbir Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General, who presented arguments on behalf of the revenue. It was noted that the High Court had relied on a previous judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of “Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2020) 18 SCC 331.”

However, Mr. Balbir Singh asserted that the revenue intends to distinguish the current case’s facts from those of the Maruti Suzuki India Limited case. He also mentioned that the High Court’s order did not reflect any such argument presented before it.

Supreme Court’s Actions:

The Supreme Court made the following key points in its disposition of the case:

• Factual Distinction: The revenue sought to make a factual distinction between the Maruti Suzuki India Limited case and the present case. However, the court observed that there was no record of such a submission being made before the High Court.
• Review Petition: Mr. Balbir Singh suggested that the Department might consider filing a review petition before the High Court to present the distinguishing features for the court’s consideration. The Supreme Court did not express an opinion on this matter.
• Liberty to Pursue Proceedings: The court granted the petitioners the liberty to pursue appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with the law, including filing a review before the High Court. As a result, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of.
• Open Questions: If the petitioners remain aggrieved by the High Court’s final judgment, they are free to bring all questions before the Supreme Court, including those raised in the Special Leave Petition.
• Pending Applications: Any pending applications related to the case were also disposed of by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion and Implications:

The Supreme Court’s disposition of the ACIT v. Vahanvati Consultants Private Limited case provides the parties involved with the opportunity to pursue appropriate legal remedies, including filing a review petition before the High Court. The court has left all questions open for further consideration, giving the parties flexibility in addressing their concerns.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

1 Mr Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General states that though the High Court has followed the judgment of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2020) 18 SCC 331, the revenue seeks to make a factual distinction between the position as it obtained in that case with the facts of the present case. Reading the order of the High Court, we do not find that any such submission has been urged before the High Court.

2 At this stage, Mr Balbir Singh states that the Department would be advised to file a review petition before the High Court bringing the distinguishing features on the record of the High Court. We make no expression of opinion on that aspect.

3 Granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings in accordance with law including by way of a review before the High Court, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

4 If the petitioners are aggrieved by the final judgment of the High Court, all the questions are kept open to be agitated before this Court including on the grounds which are raised in the Special Leave Petition.

5 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.