DR.K.C.MAMMEN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/5764/2007HC KeralaKLHC01044434200713 February 2014Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dr. K.C. Mammen, was assessed to gift tax for assessment year 1991-92. His appeals to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were dismissed. However, the High Court, in an Income Tax Reference, answered the referred question in favour of the petitioner. Following this, the Appellate Tribunal passed a consequential order granting the petitioner entitlement to a substantial refund. Despite the petitioner sending numerous reminders, the assessing authority did not pass a consequential order to give effect to the Tribunal's order, leading to the non-receipt of the due refund. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for expeditious implementation of the Tribunal's order and for the refund with interest.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the assessing officer had passed an order dated 27.02.2007, sanctioning a refund of Rs. 2,44,266/-. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner had received this refund amount under protest and had filed a rectification application before the assessing authority concerning the computation of the refund, which was pending. Given that the petitioner had already received a refund and was pursuing a rectification for the computation, the Court found that nothing further remained in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was closed. The issue of interest on the refund was not explicitly decided as the petition was closed on the basis of the refund being received and a rectification application being filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent-Income Tax authority has failed to give effect to the consequential order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, passed pursuant to the High Court's judgment, thereby causing delay in granting the refund due to the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite numerous reminders, the assessing authority had not passed a consequential order to grant the refund, necessitating the writ petition. The petitioner relied on the High Court's judgment (Ext.P2) and the Tribunal's consequential order (Ext.P3). Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay in granting the refund or the computation thereof.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

26(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THUR AY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/24TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 5764 of 2007 (J) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- DR.K.C.MAMMEN, MOUNT WARDHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, KOTTAYAM. R, BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) R, BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.1994. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER U/S 26(6) OF G.T.ACT, 1958, DATED 13.5.2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CHALAN NO.17 DATED 17.7.1995. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.02.2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 12.10.2006. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.87/2007 DATED 23.01.2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.88/

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →