V. VIJAYAKUMAR vs. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/26881/2021HC KeralaKLHC01067512202129 April 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representation (Ext.P6), directed the 1st respondent (Director General of Income Tax, Investigation Wing) to consider the representation. This consideration must be done with notice to the petitioner and any affected parties. The decision is to be made in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court also clarified that the petitioner and any affected parties would be given an opportunity of hearing, either physically or through online mode, before any orders are passed on Ext.P6. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, V. Vijayakumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a writ of mandamus. The petition was directed against the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation Wing) and the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing). The petitioner sought a direction for the 1st respondent to consider and take follow-up action on his representation (Ext.P6) made against the 3rd respondent, Mr. Mohammed Babu Paramboor, Director of M/s. Orbit Infrastructure and Developers (India) Ltd. The representation was to be considered in light of observations made in Ext.P7 order. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation Wing) to consider and take follow-up action on the petitioner's representation (Ext.P6) against the 3rd respondent, considering the observations in Ext.P7 order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 1st respondent should be commanded to consider and take follow-up action on his representation (Ext.P6) against the 3rd respondent, taking into account the observations in Ext.P7 order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

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 MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 9TH VAISAKHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 26881 OF 2021 PETITIONER: V. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 71 YEARS S/O. APPU NAIR, RESIDING AT "ANUGRAHA" PUTHUPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD – 678 731. BY ADVS. G. HARIHARAN PRAVEEN HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION WING), ARYABHANGHI, PINNACLE, SAHODARAN 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 INFRASTRUCRTURE AND DEVELOPERS (INDIA)LTD, S/O. MOHAMMED ALI PARAMBOOR, PARAMBOOR HOUSE, PATTIKKAD, P.O. MALAPPURAM – 679 325. P.K. RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) APPU AJITH JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26881 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:- “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the 1st respondent to consider and take follow up action on Ext.P6 representation made by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent taking note of the observations made in Ext.P7 order; And ii. To pass such other orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case and without any expression on the merits of Ext.P6 representation dated 18.10.2021, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the same

W.P.(C) NO.26881 OF 2021 3 with notice to the petitioner and affected parties, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, the petitioner and affected parties, if any, will be given an opportunity of hearing either physically or through Online mode before orders are passed in Ext.P6 representation. Accordingly, the above writ petition is disposed of. MOHAMMED NIAS C.P JUDGE SPR

W.P.(C) NO.26881 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.07.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P(C)NO.27656/2015 DATED 12.04.2017 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P. (C)NO.1882/2019 DATED 14.06.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.07.2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P. (C)NO.6704/2020 DATED 05.03.2020. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.10.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA IN CMP NO.43/2018. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →