THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. G.OOMMEN, KOTTARAKKARA

PDF · subscribers
WTA/19/2008HC KeralaKLHC01081040200829 October 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court rejected the applications for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased respondent, setting aside abatement, and condoning the delay of 1879 days. The Court was not convinced that notice could be issued to the legal heirs at this stage, especially considering the demand amount of Rs. 63,111/-. The Court also found the appeal to be not maintainable due to gross delay in impleading legal heirs and in light of the litigation policy. Furthermore, both the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the learned Counsel for the deceased respondent submitted that the issue was covered against the Revenue. The Court noted that an earlier decision of a Division Bench of the High Court had been set aside by the Supreme Court and remanded, and subsequent decisions in WTA.Nos.9/2008 and connected cases and W.P.(C) No.23478/2010 had gone in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the Wealth Tax Appeal was rejected. No costs were awarded. The principle is that procedural delays and lack of maintainability, coupled with a clear unfavorable position on merits, will lead to the dismissal of an appeal.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns Wealth Tax Appeal (WTA) No. 19 of 2008, filed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, in WTA 134/2005. The respondent is G. Oommen, represented by St. Mary's Cashew Factory. The appeal was filed against an order demanding Rs. 63,111/-. The High Court of Kerala was considering applications for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent, after setting aside abatement and condoning a significant delay of 1879 days. The Court noted that the issue was covered against the Revenue based on earlier decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the applications for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased respondent, setting aside abatement, and condoning the delay of 1879 days are maintainable and should be allowed? (Question of procedure and maintainability) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side regarding the applications. However, the fact that the respondent's counsel appeared and made submissions suggests they were opposing the applications or at least present during the hearing. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, along with the learned counsel for the deceased respondent, submitted that the issue is covered against the Revenue. This implies that the Revenue acknowledged the unfavorable position of the case on merits, which likely influenced their stance on the procedural applications, or at least did not press for a hearing on merits if the procedural hurdles were insurmountable. 2. Whether the Wealth Tax Appeal itself is maintainable given the procedural delays and the merits of the case? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, along with the learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the issue is covered against the Revenue, and the earlier decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court and remanded, with subsequent decisions in WTA.Nos.9/2008 and connected cases and W.P.(C) No.23478/2010 going in favour of the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WTA.No. 19 of 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WTA 134/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: G.OOMMEN, KOTTARAKKARA ST.MARY'S CASHEW FACTORY, PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH OTHER PRESENT: THIS WEALTH TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WTA 19/2008 2 JUDGMENT/ORDER ------------------------------------------- C.M.A.No.335/2012, I.A.Nos.1436 & 1437 of 2012 and W.T.A. No. 19 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Vinod Chandran, J. The Applications coming up today are the applications for impleading the legal heirs of the sole respondent, after setting aside the abatement and an application for condonation of delay of 1879 days. We are not convinced that there could be any notice issued to the legal heirs at this stage, especially looking at the demand payable as per Annexure A order, which is Rs.63,111/-. The appeal as of now would not be maintainable also looking at the litigation policy. There is also gross delay caused in impleading the legal heirs. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the learned Counsel, who appeared for the respondent, who is now deceased, that the issue is covered against the Revenue. The earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court having been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and remanded; after which the issue has gone in favour of the

WTA 19/2008 3 assessee in W.T.A.Nos.9/2008 and connected cases and W.P. (C) No.23478/2010. In such circumstances, the Applications are rejected and as a consequence the W.T.Appeal also stands rejected. No costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE

WTA 19/2008 4 APPENDIX APPELLANT(S)'/ ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 08.03.2004 ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 24.03.2005 ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.08.2006.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →