C/SCA/7618/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7618 of 2021

With

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7620 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

Sd/-

and

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

Sd/-

==========================================================

1

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?

NO

2

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

YES

3

Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the judgment ?

NO

4

Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution

of India or any order made thereunder ?

NO

==========================================================

DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

Versus

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE

(2)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SN SOPARKAR, LD. SR. ADVOCATE WITH MRS SWATI

SOPARKAR(870) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MR MR BHATT, LD. STANDING COUNSEL WITH MRS MAUNA M

BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

and

Page 1 of 55

C/SCA/7618/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2021

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

Date : 19/08/2021

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI)

1

Both the petitions, being inter-connected

with each other, involving similar questions of

law and facts, were heard together finally at

the admission stage with the consent of the

learned Advocates for the parties, and hence are

being decided by this common judgement.

2

Initially, the petitioners in both the

petitions had challenged the order dated

8.4.2021 passed by the respondent, disposing of

the objections raised by the respective

petitioners against the proposed referral for

special audit within the meaning of Section

142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as the “said Act”), and had also

challenged the impugned directions given by the

respondent to the petitioners vide the

communication dated 22.4.2021 under the said

provisions. To be precise, following prayers

were sought in both the petitions:-

Page 2 of 55

C/SCA/7618/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2021

7. … that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the

nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or

a writ in the nature of certiorari or any

other appropriate writ, direction or order and

be pleased to:

(a)

quash and set aside the impugned order

dated 8.4.2021 at Annexure-A to this

petition;

(b)

quash and set aside the impugned

directions of 22.4.2021 at Annexure-A to

this petition;

(c)

pending the admission, hearing and

final disposal of this petition, to stay

implementation and operation of the notices

at Annexure-A to this petition;”

3

However, at the time of hearing, the learned

Sr. Advocate Mr. S. N. Soparkar did not press

for the challenge to the impugned order dated

8.4.2021 and confined himself to the challenge

to the impugned directions dated 22.4.2021. The

Court, therefore, while issuing “notice” to the

respondent in both the petitions, had passed the

following order on 14.6.2021:-

“1. The Petitioner by way of present petition

has sought to challenge the impugned order

dated 8.4.2021 at Annexure-A as well as the

impugned directions dated 22.4.2021, which are

also part of Annexure-A.

2. After arguing for some time, learned Senior

Advocate Mr. S.N.Soparkar for the petitioner

confines himself to the challenge