RAGHAVAN NAIR vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/5551/2019HC KeralaKLHC01014448201929 August 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raghavan Nair, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) to grant credit for tax deducted at source (TDS) on payments made to him, as evidenced by Exts. P1 and P1(o). He also sought a direction to the 1st respondent to pass orders on applications marked as Exts. P4 and P5 expeditiously. The 2nd respondent is the Deputy Chief Engineer (Constructions), Southern Railway. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The core of the dispute revolves around the petitioner's claim for TDS credit and the processing of his applications by the Income Tax department. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent submissions made by the respondents.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by accepting the statement made on behalf of the first respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax). The court noted that the first respondent had re-examined the issue, decided to grant a refund of Rs. 1,85,950/-, and was taking steps to transfer this amount to the petitioner's bank account. This action was considered by the revenue as substantially redressing the petitioner's grievance. The court directed that if the petitioner does not receive the relief within eight weeks from the date of the judgment, he is at liberty to file an application for recalling the judgment. The primary issue of TDS credit and the disposal of applications were thus considered resolved by the revenue's action, leading to the disposal of the writ petition on these grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for credit of tax deducted at source (TDS) against payments made to him, as per Section 199 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that he is entitled to credit for TDS as evidenced by the documents filed (Exts. P1 and P1(o)) and seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the 1st respondent to grant this credit. - Revenue's contention: The 1st respondent, through written instructions, stated that the issue has been re-examined, a decision has been taken to grant a refund of Rs. 1,85,950/-, and steps are being taken to transfer this amount to the petitioner's bank account. Therefore, the grievance is substantially redressed. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of his applications (Exts. P4 and P5) by the 1st respondent? - Assessee's contention: The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for the expeditious disposal of his applications. - Revenue's contention: The revenue's submission regarding the refund implies that the applications, or at least the core issue they represent, are being addressed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 199

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI THUR AY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 7TH BHADRA, 1941 WP(C).No.5551 OF 2019(T) PETITIONER: RAGHAVAN NAIR 'GOKULAM', VIJAYALAKSHMI MANDIRAM, KANNAMKULAM TEMPLE ROAD, CHALAKUDY EAST, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2 (1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTIONS) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SALEM - 636 005. R1 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX R2 BY SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, SC, RAILWAYS SMT MARIA ELIZABETH WILSON FOR SRI.S.ANANTHANKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.5551 OF 2019(T) 2 JUDGMENT Heard Smt. Krishna K., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned counsel for the first respondent and Smt. Maria Elizabeth Wilson for Sri. S. Ananthakrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

2.

The petitioner prays for the following relief

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 199

All 528 judgments and leading authorities on Section 199 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →