Mr. Kotapati Ravi, And 3 Others vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Initiating Officer, And 2 Others

WP/26236/2022HC TelanganaHBHC01036643202226 September 2022Author: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN11 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The petitioners, including Mr. Kotapati Ravi and others, filed writ petitions challenging various orders and notices issued under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. These included show cause notices, provisional attachment orders, and final orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Initiating Officer and other revenue authorities. The petitioners contended that these actions were arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The petitions sought to declare these actions illegal and to set them aside. The revenue authorities were the respondents. The assessment years are not explicitly stated but the actions pertain to the period leading up to 2022.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The Court noted that the issue raised in these writ petitions was squarely covered by a previous decision of the same Court rendered on September 13, 2022, in W.P. No. 33191 of 2022 and batch (M/s. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Limited v. The Adjudicating Authority), which had also been allowed. Consequently, following that precedent, the present writ petitions were allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Miscellaneous applications, if any, were to stand closed. No order as to costs was made.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the show cause notices dated 05.03.2022, provisional attachment orders dated 08.03.2022, and subsequent orders dated 27.05.2022, issued under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, are arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the aforementioned notices and orders were illegal, arbitrary, and violated fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. They sought to have these actions set aside. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue. However, their participation as respondents implies a defense of the actions taken under the Benami Transactions Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(1),Section 24(3),Section 24(4)(a)(i),Section 26(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J uri iction) IVONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs. 26236 AND 29778 0F 2022 WRIT PETITION NO.262 36 0F 2022: Between: 2 4 Mr. Kotapati Ravi, S/o Mr. Kotapati Sambasiva Rao, Aqed 56 vears. Occ.

Business .Flrl N9, 101 Green_Meadow Apartm.nis, (ogrnti (riiitti.iJ Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada - 520 010, Andtira pradesh.

Mr. Ramakrishna Prasad Tummala, S/o Mr. Tummala Sriramulu. Aoed 74 years, Occ Retired Farmer, H.No. Z-299-2, Thoflavalluiu,-VJvvLiu"n"ora Sunkara^ Aqaneyulu Bazar, Vuyyuru Mandal, Xriirrni -Oistrict': -s) r' 'ioS, Andhra Praclesh Y:^Iot3prli _S_lshmanjani,,Wo Mr. K.Karthikeya and D/o Mr Korapari Ravi, fgeo. JU years, .Ucc: Housewife, R/o Kakatheeya School Camous ^aKarneeya Nagar, Nandigama, Krishna Diskict _ 521 1gS, Andhra pradedh.

Ms Kotapati Haripriya, wo Mr. M.Raghu pavan and D./o Mr. Kotaoati Ravi Aged 28 years, Occ: Housewife, -Rlo. O_Z.gg, Zto - t-Jne,'-iii-'C;;:;, Arundalpeta, Guntur - 522 601, Andhra pradesh -' - ...PETITIONERS ' The Assistant co

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 24(1)

All 68 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →