V.VIJAYAKUMAR vs. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/1882/2019HC KeralaKLHC01005230201914 June 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the arguments made by the petitioner's counsel, Sri. G. Hariharan, granted the liberty as prayed for. The court noted that Sri. Hariharan, after realizing the difficulty in pursuing the current writ prayer, did not press the writ. Instead, he sought permission to send a reminder or file a representation before the respondents concerning the previous writ petition (WP(C) No. 27656 of 2015) and to re-invoke the court's jurisdiction if inaction continued. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the grievance canvassed by the petitioner or the objections raised by the third respondent. The responsibility to look into the issue and decide accordingly was left to the department, in the manner provided by law. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, V. Vijayakumar, filed a writ petition (WP(C) No. 1882 of 2019) before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had previously filed WP(C) No. 27656 of 2015. The current writ petition was filed due to the respondents' inaction concerning the order dated 12.04.2017 in WP(C) No. 27656 of 2015. The petitioner's counsel, Sri. G. Hariharan, after arguing for a considerable time, realized the difficulty in pursuing the current writ prayer. He sought liberty to send a reminder or file a representation before the respondents regarding the earlier writ petition and, if inaction continued, to invoke the court's jurisdiction again. The third respondent, Mr. Mohammed Babu Paramboor, was also represented by counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the alleged inaction of the respondents concerning the order dated 12.04.2017 in WP(C) No. 27656 of 2015. The petitioner's counsel, Sri. G. Hariharan, argued that the respondents have failed to take steps pursuant to the order in the previous writ petition, leading to continued inaction. He sought liberty to send a reminder or file a representation and, if the inaction persisted, to re-invoke the court's jurisdiction. The revenue (respondents 1 and 2) did not explicitly record their arguments in this judgment. However, Sri. G. Sreekumar, counsel for the third respondent, raised objections. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

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 S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941 WP(C).No.1882 of 2019 PETITIONER: V.VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 69 YEARS APPU NAIR, RESIDING AT ANUGRAHA,PUTHUPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD-678 731 BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION WING), ARYABHANGHI,PINNACLE, SAHODRAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, KOCHI-682 020 2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INVESTIGATION WING), MANJAKULAM, NEAR KSRTC, PALAKKAD-678 001 3 MR.MOHAMMED BABU PARAMBOOR, DIRECTOR, M/S., ORBIT INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS (INDIA) LTD, S/O. MOHAMMED ALI PARAMBOOR, PARAMBOOR HOUSE, PATTIKKAD,P.O MALAPPURAM-679 325 BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.1882 of 2019 -2-

JUDGMENT Sri. G. Hariharan, argued the writ petition for considerable length of time and after realizing the difficulty not taking any steps pursuant to the order dated 12.04.2017 in W.P(C) No. 27656 of 2015, for the present does not press the writ prayer seeks liberty to send a reminder or file a representation before the respondents in Writ petition No. 27656 of 2015, and thereafter the inaction is continued not withstanding the reminder sent now seeks liberty of this Court to once again invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2.

The statement as made by Mr. Hariharan is referred and recorded. By granting the liberty as prayed for, the writ petition is dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, it is made clear that, this Court has not examined the merits of grievance canvassed by the writ petitioner or other objections raised by Sri. G. Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for R3. It is for the department to look into the issue , in the manner provided by law and decide accordingly. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE SJ

WP(C).No.1882 of 2019 -3-

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05/09/2014 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/07/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P. (C) NO.27656/2015 DATED 12/04/2017 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →