BASHEER P.N.O. vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/16264/2023HC KeralaKLHC01035299202323 May 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the 48-hour time period granted by the respondent in Ext.P1 notice was too short for the petitioner to submit a reply with adequate materials to substantiate his defence. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioner be granted at least one month's time from May 16, 2023, to submit his reply with supporting materials. The respondent was directed to accept the reply if filed within this extended period and to consider and finalize the show-cause notice after adverting to the petitioner's reply in accordance with law. The Court exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to dispose of the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Basheer P.N.O., proprietor of M/s. P.K.L Traders, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner was facing assessment proceedings initiated by the respondent, the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi), alleging variations to his returned income. The respondent issued a show-cause notice (Ext.P1) requiring the petitioner to respond within 48 hours. The petitioner sought an extension of time to file his objections and produce documents, deeming the 48-hour period unreasonable. The petition sought a direction to grant the petitioner two months from May 16, 2023, to file his objections to Ext.P1.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 48-hour period granted by the respondent in Ext.P1 notice to show cause is legally sustainable, considering the requirement for the petitioner to produce adequate materials to substantiate his defence? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 48-hour time period fixed by the respondent in Ext.P1 notice was unreasonable, arbitrary, and unjustifiable, preventing him from adequately responding and producing necessary documents. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that Sri. Jose Joseph appeared for the respondent, but no specific arguments were detailed in the judgment regarding the revenue's stance on the time period granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2023 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16264 OF 2023 PETITIONER: BASHEER P.N.O. AGED 55, S/O. MOHAMMED ALI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. P.K.L TRADERS, ERNAD TALUK, PULIKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673637 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENT: THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (S.C.) SRI. S. MANU (DSGI - R1) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 16264 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2023 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to grant the petitioner two months’ time from 16.5.2023 to file his objection to Ext.P1 notice. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, assessment steps have been taken against the petitioner by the respondent, alleging variation to the returned income. The respondent has issued Ext.P1 notice directing the petitioner to show cause within 48 hours, why action should not be taken against him. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 request to the respondent, seeking enlargement of time to produce the documents and submit his reply. The time period fixed by the respondent in Ext.P1 is unreasonable, arbitrary and unjustifiable. Hence, the writ petition.

WP(C) NO. 16264 OF 2023 3 3. Heard: Sri. Harishankar V. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking into account the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that the 48 hours time period fixed by the respondent in Ext.P1 is too short a period for the petitioner to submit a reply with adequate materials to substantiate his defence. Consequently, I am of the view that the petitioner has to be granted at least one month’s time from 16.5.2023 to submit his reply with materials. Resultantly, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I dispose of the writ petition as follows:- (i) The respondent shall accept the reply if any filed by the petitioner with supporting materials, if filed within one month from 16.05.2023.

WP(C) NO. 16264 OF 2023 4 (ii) The respondent shall consider and finalise Ext.P1 show cause notice after adverting to the reply filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- rmm23/5/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 16264 OF 2023 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16264/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DTD. 16- 05-2023 Exhibit P2 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DTD. 18-05-2023 Exhibit P3 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP (C) NO. 11525/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 01-03-2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →