FATIMA W/O. NASIRUDDIN BAGAWAN vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR INCOME TAX

WP/67061/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC02000726201221 February 2013Bench: ASHOK B HINCHIGERI2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court considered the request made by the petitioners' learned advocate to withdraw the writ petitions. A memo seeking leave to withdraw the petitions was filed and taken on record by the Court. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the underlying claim or the implementation of the order dated 27.03.2012. The principle that can be cited from this judgment is that a party has the right to withdraw their legal proceedings, and the court will typically grant such a request, leading to the dismissal of the case without adjudication.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Fatima, Nasiruddin, and Raheesahmed, all residents of Vidyanagar, Hubli, filed three writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad. The petitions were filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The core prayer was for a writ of mandamus directing the Additional Commissioner for Income Tax (Appeals), Circle-1, Hubli (Respondent No. 1), to implement a specific order contained in paragraph 7(A) of a previous order dated 27.03.2012, which was passed in Writ Petition No. 66754-756/2012. The respondents included various income tax authorities at different levels, including the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Recovery), Joint Commissioner (Recovery), Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), and Income Tax Officer (Recovery).

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the Additional Commissioner for Income Tax (Appeals) to implement a specific direction contained in a prior court order. The petitioners sought to enforce the implementation of paragraph 7(A) of the order dated 27.03.2012. The respondents, being various income tax authorities, were expected to respond to this prayer. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by either the petitioners or the revenue regarding the merits of implementing the prior order. The sole action recorded is the petitioners' subsequent request to withdraw the petitions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: AND

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION No. 67061 OF 2012 (T-IT) AND WRIT PETITION Nos. 76223-224/2013 BETWEEN: 1. Fatima, W/o Nasiruddin Bagawan, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture. 2. Nasiruddin, S/o Paplusab Bagawan, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agriculture and Business. 3. Raheesahmed, S/o Nasiruddin Bagawan, Age: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture and Business. All are r/o Vidyanagar, Hubli, Tq. Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. ... Petitioners (By Sri F.V.Patil, Advocate) AND: 1. The Additional Commissioner for Income Tax (Appeals) Circle-1, Navanagar, Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. 2. The Commissioner for Income Tax (Recovery) Range-1, Navanagar, Hubli, Dist: Dharwad.

2 3. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Recovery) Range-1, Navanagar, Tq. Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. 4. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of Income Tax And Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Navanagar, Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. 5. The Income Tax Officer (Recovery) Ward-1(1), Navanagar, Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. …Respondents These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to implement the order contained in para 7(A) of the order dated 27.03.2012 in W.P.No.66754-756/2012 vide Annexure-C. These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following: O R D E R The petitioners’ learned advocate files a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw these petitions. The memo is taken on record. These petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/- JUDGE mkc

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →