| Case ID |
31a698d1-0f41-4cd0-a2f8-6b0362aa1cf5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1992 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1992 |
| Decision |
The court held that the liability to pay income tax does not depend on the assessment being made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) but arises from the enactment of the law prescribing the tax rates. It was also established that even if a regular assessment is not made within the prescribed time, taxes paid based on the returns filed by the assessee remain valid recoveries. The court emphasized the validity of taxes collected under provisional assessments and self-assessments, asserting that these payments are not merely interim but are recognized as legally due amounts. Thus, the claim for refunds must satisfy the conditions laid out in the Income-tax Act, particularly sections 237 and 240, and cannot result in the complete refund of taxes collected under valid circumstances. |
| Summary |
This landmark case from the Gujarat High Court addresses the nuances of tax liability under the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly regarding provisional assessments and self-assessments. The court clarified that the obligation to pay income tax is established by legislative enactment rather than dependent on the completion of assessments by the ITO. The ruling confirms that taxes paid under provisional assessments remain valid even if the regular assessment is not completed within the stipulated time. The court also discussed the implications of sections 237 and 240, which govern refunds and excess payments. This case is significant for taxpayers and legal practitioners focusing on tax law, tax compliance, and the operational functions of tax authorities. Keywords: Income Tax, Provisional Assessment, Tax Liability, Gujarat High Court, Refunds, Tax Compliance. |
| Court |
Gujarat High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Income Tax Department
|
| Judges |
R.C. Mankad, Acting C.J.,
S.B. Majmudar,
R.K. Abichandani
|
| Lawyers |
J.M. Thakore,
K.H. Kaji,
J.P. Shah,
K.C. Patel,
Mihir J. Thakore,
M.R. Bhatt
|
| Petitioners |
Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1992 SLD 1381,
(1992) 194 ITR 659
|
| Other Citations |
Deep Chand Jain v. ITO [1984] 145 ITR 676 (Punj. & Har.),
Jagannath Rameshwar Prasad v. ITO [1974] 93 ITR 16 (All.),
R.A. Boga v. AAC [1977] 110 ITR 1 (Punj. & Har.)(FB),
M.M. Parikh, ITO v. Navanagar Transport & Industries Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 663 (SC),
Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 799 (SC),
Purshottamdas Thakurdas v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 206 (SC),
CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC),
R. Gopal Ramnaryan v. Third ITO [1980] 126 ITR 369 (Kar.),
ACCE v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. AIR 1972 SC 2563 (SC),
Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row [1966] 61 ITR 428 (SC),
Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd. v. G.B. Chand, ITO [1966] 61 ITR 493 (Bom.),
Siemens India Ltd. v. K. Subramanian. ITO [1983] 143 ITR 120(Bom.),
S.S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. [1964] 53 ITR 231 (SC),
Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes [1988] 173 ITR 42 (SC),
Baroda Board & Paper Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1976] 102 ITR 153 (Guj.),
Rajratna Naranbhai Mills Co. Ltd. v. STO [1991] 189 ITR 90 (SC),
L. Dwarka Dass v. ITO [1956] 29 ITR 60 (All.),
Grantha Mandir v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 287 (Ori.),
Purshottam Dayal Varshney v. CIT [1974] 94 ITR 187 (All.),
Rayalseema Constructions v. DCTO [1959] 10 STC 345 (Mad.),
G. Lakshminarayana v. CTO [1974] 33 STC 558 (AP),
Leader Valves (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 542 (Punj. & Har.),
Hansa Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 322 (Punj. & Har.),
CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC),
CIT v. Nagri Mills Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 292 (Guj.),
Manmohanlal v. ITO [1987] 168 ITR 616 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
4,
237,
140A,
240
|