Case Law Details
Saravana Selvarathnam Retail Private Limited Vs ACIT ( Madras High Court)
The recent ruling by the Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retail Private Limited Vs ACIT saw the dismissal of the petitioner’s challenge to two tax demand notices. The notices indicated demands pending for multiple assessment years, raising key legal and financial implications.
In this case, the High Court was meticulous in its evaluation of the status of proceedings relating to each demand. While some demands had pending appeals, rectification petitions, or stay applications, others were concluded and required settlement. A few insignificant ones were already paid.
The crux of the matter lies in the Court’s observation that the petitioner has to pursue and establish that demands nullified by appellate authorities have no further appeals by the revenue.
Another important point raised in the judgment is the principle of “finality”. In some instances, the demands were found to have attained “finality”, indicating that there is no ongoing or pending dispute about them.
The Madras High Court’s dismissal of Saravana Group’s petition underscores the need for taxpayers to meticulously track the status of their tax demands and the corresponding legal proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr. A. P. Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents and is armed with instructions to enable final disposal of these Writ Petitions, even at the stage of admission.
2. The challenge is to two demand notices, both dated 05.06.2023, where under demands, stated to be pending for various years, i.e., 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 have been tabulated and the petitioners have been asked to pay the demands under threat of coercive action.
3. The status of proceedings in regard to the demands raised have been explained by the petitioners in the writ affidavits as follows:
|
S. No. |
AY | Section | Date of Order |
Demand | Remarks |
| 1 | 2021-22 | 143(3) | 31.12.2022 | 29,91,79,044 | Appeal and stay petition pending before CIT(A) |
| 2 | 2020-21 | 141a | 30.12.2021 | 18,02,330 | |
| 3 | 2019-20 | 154 | 24.06.2020 | 5,38,890 | ITAT allowed appeal |
| 4 | 2018-19 | 143 (1) (a) | 16.10.2019 | 69,75,840 | Rectification petition pending before AO |
| 5 | 2011-12 | 153A | 31.03.2014 | 2,05,998 | |
| 6 | 2010-11 | 220(2) | 20.08.2014 | 2,06,838 | |
| 7 | 2009-10 | 153A | 31.03.2014 | 4,35,918 | NIL order passed by CIT(A) |
| 8 | 2009-10 | 115 WE | 03.02.2011 | 5,87,130 |
–
|
S.No. |
AY | Section | Date of Order |
Demand | Remarks |
| 1 | 2022-23 | 143(1)(A) | 21.02.2023 | 510 | |
| 2 | 2022-23 | 272AA | 08.03.2022 | 1000 | |
| 3 | 2021-22 | 143(3) | 31.12.2022 | 1,10,92,179 | Appeal and stay petition pending before CIT(A) |
| 4 | 2020-21 | 154 | 27.05.2022 | 1,45,000 | Appeal and stay petition pending before CIT(A) on 08.06.2022 |
| 5 | 2019-20 | 154 | 24.06.2020 | 60,760 | |
| 6 | 2018-19 | 147 | 30.03.2023 | 1,25,57,510 | Appeal and stay petition pending before CIT(A) |
| 7 | 2011-12 | 24.07.2014 | 252 | Paid on 09.02.2023 | |
| 8 | 2010-11 | 24.07.2014 | 228 | Paid on 09.02.2023 | |
| 9 | 2009-10 | 15A | 25.03.2014 | 4,54,259 | |
| 10 | 2007-08 | 24.07.2014 | 3,638 | Paid on 09.02.2023 | |
| 11 | 2006-07 | 143(3) | 27.06.2011 | 1,230 | Paid on 09.02.2023 |
–
| S.No | AY | Section | Date of Order | Demand | Remarks |
| 12 | 2006-07 | 143A | 25.03.2014 | 1,585 | Paid on 09.02.2023 |
4. It is seen that statutory appeals, rectification petitions and stay applications are pending before the various authorities even according to the petitioners. While the petitioner in W.P.No.18553 of 2023 would state that in two cases (Sl.Nos.3 and 7) the appellate authorities have allowed the appeals, it is for the petitioner to pursue that position, if at all there have been no further appeals by the revenue, and establish that those demands have been nullified.
5. As regards Sl.Nos.2,5,6 and 8 in W.P.No.18553 of 2023 and Sl.Nos.1,2,5 and 9 in W.P.No.18558 of 2023, the remarks column is blank and hence those demands appear to have been attained finality. It is thus for the respective petitioners to settle the same.
6. As per the petitioner’s tabulation in W.P.No.18558 of 2023, demands at Sl.Nos.7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 have been paid on 09.02.2023, but the sum total of these demands does not exceed Rs.10,000/- and are hence inconsequential in the larger scheme of things.
7. Thus, I see no avenue to intervene in these Writ Petitions and in any event, and certainly, no case is made out for quash of the impugned demands, in light of the admitted position as noted above.
8. These Writ Petitions are hence dismissed with no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
