P.M NOUSHAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
Crl.MC/10819/2023HC KeralaKLHC01093997202329 February 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted the petitioner's request for permission to withdraw the Crl.M.C. with the liberty to file a fresh one. The court's reasoning was based on the counsel's submission seeking this permission. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition being expressly reserved. No decision was made on the merits of the original case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, P.M. Noushad, filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.) before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. This case was filed against an order dated in CC No. 2672 of 2018, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E&O), Ernakulam. The respondent in this case is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ernakulam. The Crl.M.C. was listed for admission on February 29, 2024. The petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the Crl.M.C. with liberty to file a fresh one.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether to grant the petitioner's request to withdraw the Crl.M.C. with liberty to file a fresh petition. The petitioner's counsel argued for permission to withdraw the case and refile it later. The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The court had to decide whether to allow the withdrawal with the requested liberty.

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 10819 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.2672 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: P.M NOUSHAD AGED 40 YEARS S/O MR. POOVATHUMCHOTTIL MAKKAR,HOUSE, POOVATHUMCHOTTIL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOR P.O KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY ADVS. DIVYA RAVINDRAN RAFEEK. V.K. RESPONDENT: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ALAFA LIZA BUILDING OPP SRV LP SCHOOL, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682011 OTHER PRESENT: SMT. SREEJA V. (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 10819 OF 2023 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 10819 of 2023 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024

ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Crl.M.C. with liberty to file a fresh one. Permission is granted. Reserving the aforesaid liberty of the petitioner, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed as withdrawn. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM

CRL.MC NO. 10819 OF 2023 3 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10819/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 31.01.2017 BY THE RESPOONDENT Annexure BOF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY 2011-12 DATED 29.03.2017 Annexure COF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.06.2017 Annexure DOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT FOR AY 2011-12 DATED 29.12.2017 Annexure EOF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED

BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 279(1) OF THE ACT DATED 06.11.2017 Annexure FOF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.11.2017 AGAINST ANNEXURE-F NOTICE Annexure GOF SANCTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 279(1) OF THE ACT DATED 08.01.2018 Annexure H AOF THE MEMORANDUM IN C.C.NO.2672/2018

BEFORE

THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →