CAPVEST WEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTV. LTD. vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/24540/2014HC KeralaKLHC01070161201423 September 2014Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated September 23, 2014, dismissed the writ petition. The Court found that the writ petition was not maintainable. While the specific reasoning behind this decision is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, it is implied that the Court concluded that the petitioners had alternative and efficacious remedies available to them. Therefore, the High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition, meaning the petitioners' challenge through this route was unsuccessful. No issues were expressly left undecided; the petition itself was decided on the grounds of maintainability.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Capvest Wealth Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, Mr. B.R. Ajit, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the revenue authorities, specifically the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi, and other related Income Tax Commissioners and Deputy/Assistant Commissioners. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated upon, beyond the fact that the matter is before the High Court for admission.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the writ petition filed by the petitioners was maintainable. The petitioners, Capvest Wealth Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. B.R. Ajit, sought to challenge certain actions or orders of the Income Tax Department. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel for Income Tax, likely argued against the maintainability of the writ petition, possibly contending that alternative remedies were available to the petitioners, such as approaching the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) or filing a regular appeal. The petitioners, on the other hand, would have argued for the maintainability of the writ petition, perhaps citing exceptional circumstances or the inadequacy of alternative remedies. The specific legal provisions or precedents relied upon by either side are not recorded in the provided text.

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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/1ST ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 24540 of 2014 (N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. CAPVEST WEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVt. LTD., 3RD FLOOR, PUTHURAN PLAZA,KPCC JUNCTION,M.G ROAD, ERNAKULAM- 682 011, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.B.R AJIT 2. MR.B.R AJIT,MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAPVEST WEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD, PUTHURAN PLAZA,THIRD FLOOR,MG ROAD, KPCC JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 011 BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PRINCIPAL,CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI- 682 018. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOCHI,KERALA- 682 018. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, KOCHI, KERALA- 682 018 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI- 682 018. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE(1), KOCHI 682 018. 6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI 682 018. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pk WP(C).No. 24540 of 2014 (N) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SEC 148 DATED 08-03-2013. EXHIBIT P2:TRUE COPY OF 5TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 04-10-2013. EXHIBIT P3:TRUE COPY OF THE RELAVANT PORTION OF THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE UNDER SEC 144 OF IT ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DATED 31-10-2013. EXHIBIT P4:TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT UNDER SEC 133(A) DATED 21-12-2012. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN DATED 04-03-2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6:TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 23-12-2013. EXHIBITP7:TRUE COPY OF 4TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 11-03-2014. EXHIBIT P8:TRUE COPY OF 4TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 18-03-2014. EXHIBIT P9:TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 26-03-2014 SENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10:TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH TAX CALCULATION STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P10(a) :TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SEC 156 OF I.T ACT. EXHIBIT P10(b) :TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SEC 271(1) (C) OF I.T ACT. EXHIBIT P10(c): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC 271F OF I.T ACT. EXHIBIT P11:TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SEC 279(1) DATED 25-03-2014. EXHIBIT P12:TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 27-03-2014. EXHIBIT P13:TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22-04-2014. EXHIBIT P14:TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 11-08-2014 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P15:TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY DATED 26-05-2014 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// pk P.S. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ======================== W.P.(C). No. 24540 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2014

JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a private limited company, having its main object to provide wealth management services in the area of shares, commodity derivatives and forex and the 2nd petitioner is its Managing Director. In the course of business, they transacted various conveyances, which included purchase of plots and development of the same as 'Silver Sand Island', near Vytilla in Ernakulam. But the project of the petitioners could not be completed as desired, because of objections from the GCDA and other authorities. In the said circumstance, there was no other alternative for the petitioners, but to sell the property to a prospective purchaser.

In the course of survey conducted by the 6th respondent, various particulars were collected and proceedings were taken against the petitioners under different provisions of the Income Tax Act. Notice was also issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 08.03.2013 in respect of the assessment year 2007- 08, referring to the 'capital gain' accumulated.

In the course of further proceedings, assessment was -2- finalised against the petitioners as per Ext.P10 series, followed by demand notices under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved of the assessment, the petitioners moved the third respondent/the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, before whom the appeals are pending. It is in the meanwhile, that the petitioners have been served with Ext.P11 notice under Section 279(1) of the Act, as to why prosecution proceedings shall not be initiated under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act. It is stated that the petitioners have submitted a detailed reply. But without any regard to the same, proceedings were pursued by the respondent department and it was only on coming across the summons served upon the petitioners, that they could realise that the proceedings had already been initiated, which according to the petitioners is without considering their objections and hence not correct or sustainable.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, by virtue of the turn of events and other embarrassing circumstances, the petitioners have decided to seek for permission of the respondents for compounding the offence, as provided under Section 279 (2) of the Act. It was accordingly, that Ext.P14 representation was preferred before the first -3- respondent/Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The prayer is to cause the same to be considered within the shortest possible time.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents as well.

In view of the limited nature of the reliefs sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to deal with the merits of the case. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P14 representation and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Further steps by the respondents in connection with prosecution proceedings, if any, may be kept in abeyance till such time. The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. kp/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →