JOSEPH K.GEORGE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/7378/2009HC KeralaKLHC01048964200902 December 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN5 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing Ext.P11 and Ext.P9 concerning the assessment year 1992-93, as the entire demand for this year had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Rules, 2020. The Court held that the petitioner is not liable for the tax demand for 1992-93. Regarding the assessment year 1993-94, the Court left all contentions raised by the petitioner open and permitted the department to take appropriate steps based on the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner was also granted liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law based on the Tribunal's decision. The operative direction was to quash the impugned orders for AY 1992-93 and leave the matter for AY 1993-94 to be decided by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Joseph K. George, a director of a private limited company, filed a writ petition challenging orders from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Ext.P11) and the Income Tax Officer (Ext.P9). The dispute pertains to tax liabilities for assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and declare his non-liability for the company's tax dues for these years. The judgment notes that other directors had filed similar writ petitions, which were disposed of. For assessment year 1992-93, the entire demand was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Rules, 2020. However, the dispute for assessment year 1993-94 was pending before the Appellate Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the tax due from the company for assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94, particularly concerning the demand under Section 179(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he is not liable to pay the tax due from the company for the specified assessment years. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders (Ext.P11 and Ext.P9) and a declaration of non-liability. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, the existence of the impugned orders suggests the revenue asserted the petitioner's liability for the company's tax dues. The revenue's position would likely be that the petitioner, as a director, is liable under Section 179(1) for the company's outstanding tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

179(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

WP(C) NO. 7378 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 7378 OF 2009 PETITIONER/S: JOSEPH K.GEORGE, s/o K.K.GEORGE, ANATHANAM HOUSE,KANJIRAPPILLY. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.C.N.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-18. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I ERNAKULAM C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-18. 3 TAX RECOVERY OFFICERRANGE I ERNAKULAM. BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX OTHER PRESENT: sri.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 7378 OF 2009 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7378 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2022

JUDGMENT The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P11 order passed by the 1st respondent and Ext.P9 order passed by the 2nd respondent. (b) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax due from the company for the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 (c) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

This writ petition relates to the payment of tax for the assessment year 1992-93 and 1993-94. The writ petition is filed by the Director of a private limited company. The other directors already filed writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C.) Nos. 22751/2008 and 7360/2009. The same was disposed as per judgment dated 12.10.2022. In the same way, this writ petition also can be disposed.

WP(C) NO. 7378 OF 2009

When this writ petition came up for consideration, it is submitted that as far as the assessment year 1992-93 is concerned, the entire demand has been settled as per Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Rules, 2020. But as far as the dispute with regard to the assessment year 1993-94 is concerned , the matter is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, this writ petition can be closed granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all their contentions before the Appellate Tribunal as far as the assessment year 1993-94 is concerned and the demand under Sec. 179(1) can be quashed as far as the assessment year 1992-93 is concerned. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: 1) Exts.P11 and P9 are quashed, as far as the assessment year 1992-93 is concerned. 2) All the other contentions raised in this writ petition based on the assessment year 1993-94 are left open and the department is free to take appropriate steps based on the decision of the Tribunal.

WP(C) NO. 7378 OF 2009

4 3) The petitioner is free to take appropriate steps in accordance to law based on the decision of the Tribunal. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE SKS

WP(C) NO. 7378 OF 2009

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7378/2009 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF INCOME SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 12.10.2004. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 4.11.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.02.2006. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 03.03.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.12.2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 179(1) ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER DATED 30.04.2007. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 27.09.2007 FILED UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE I.T.ACT. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2008 PASSED IN REVISION BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →