VADAKOOT GOPALAN SURESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/40083/2023HC KeralaKLHC01090017202330 November 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it had no ground to entertain the writ petition. The Court reasoned that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of the stay application, the appropriate remedy lay within the framework of the Income Tax Act, not by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court was not the appropriate forum for such grievances when a statutory remedy was available. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided; the petition was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vadakoot Gopalan Suresh, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to refrain from recovering demands pursuant to assessment orders (Exts P1 to P5) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 to 2015-16. The assessment order for AY 2011-12 was finalized under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act on 27.12.2017. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the petitioner declared the same income as originally declared in the return filed under Section 148, with assessments also finalized on 27.12.2017. The petitioner had filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with stay applications, which were rejected because the petitioner had not remitted 20% of the demanded tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition seeking a stay of recovery of tax demands pending disposal of appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), when the petitioner's stay applications have been rejected for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under the Income Tax Act. The Assessee argued that the High Court, sitting in parallel jurisdiction to the first appellate authority, could entertain the writ petition. The Revenue contended that the petitioner's remedy lay within the Income Tax Act, specifically by complying with the pre-deposit requirement for stay applications, and not by approaching the High Court directly. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Revenue regarding specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, but implies that the statutory remedy should be pursued.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 40083 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: VADAKOOT GOPALAN SURESH AGED 41 YEARS S/O GOPALAN 66 ARYA S.N PARK, S.N PARK POOTHOLE POOTHHOLE, WEST FORT, THRISSUR., PIN - 680004 BY ADV DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA., PIN - 680001 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA., PIN - 680001 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN KERALA., PIN – 682018 BY NAVNEETH N NATH CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.40083/2023 -2-

J U D G M E N T The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“1. To issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to refrain from recovering the demands pursuant to Exts P1 to P5 Orders, pending disposal of the appeals Exts P6 to P10, pending before the 3rd respondent for AY 2011-12 to 2015-16. 2. To stay all proceedings pursuant to Exts P1 to P5 Assessment Orders issued by the 1st respondent for the Years 2011-12 to 2015- 16, pending disposal of the appeals before the 3rd respondents; AND 3. To grant such other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2.

The assessment order for the Assessment Year 2011-12 in respect of the petitioner was finalised under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act on 27.12.2017 in Ext.P1. In respect of the Assessment Years 2012- 13 to 2015-16 the petitioner declared the same income as -3-

originally declared in the return filed under Section 148 of the Act. The assessment orders in respect of these Assessment Years were also finalized on the same day, i.e., 27.12.2017. Aggrieved by the said Assessment Orders, the petitioner had filed appeals along with the application for staying the demand. The petitioner’s application for stay has been rejected as the petitioner had not remitted the 20% of tax demanded as per the relevant provision.

3.

The petitioner has approached this Court, as this Court is sitting in parallel jurisdiction of the first Appellate Authority. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the stay application, the remedy lies under the Income Tax Act and not before this Court.

I find no ground to entertain this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE jjj -4-

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40083/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit - P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT DATED 27.12.2017 FOR AY 2011- 12 Exhibit -P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT DATED 27.12.2017 FOR AY 2012- 13 Exhibit - P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT DATED 27.12.2017 FOR AY 2013- 14 Exhibit -P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT DATED 27.12.2017 FOR AY 2014- 15 Exhibit -P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT DATED 27.12.2017 FOR AY 2015- 16 Exhibit- P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR THE AY 2011-12 DATED 23.01.2018 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit -P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR THE AY 2012-13 DATED 23.01.2018 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit- P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR THE AY 2013-14 DATED 23.01.2018 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit- P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR THE AY 2014-15 DATED 23.01.2018 BEFORE THE W.P.(C) No.40083/2023 -5- 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit -P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR THE AY 2015-16 DATED 23.01.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit -P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C ) NO. 7767/2018 DATED 8TH MARCH 2018 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit -P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INTIMATING ABOUT THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND Exhibit -P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ASKING THE PETITIONER TO PAY 20% OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND Exhibit -P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.11.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →