G.PRADEEP KUMAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/7826/2022HC KeralaKLHC01016928202215 June 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH5 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file his objections to Ext.P4 within two weeks. The Court directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to pass orders on these objections within one month thereafter. The reasoning was based on the development that the petitioner had been granted access to the records by the 2nd respondent-Bank, as confirmed by the Bank's Standing Counsel. This development addressed the petitioner's primary grievance of being unable to access his records. The Court did not decide on the merits of the PCIT's notice itself, but rather facilitated the process for the petitioner to respond to it. The operative direction is to allow the petitioner to file objections and for the PCIT to consider them.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, G. Pradeep Kumar, Managing Partner of M/s. Rajan Jewellery, filed a writ petition seeking to halt proceedings initiated by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Ext.P4. The petitioner's inability to respond stemmed from the State Bank of India (SBI), the 2nd respondent, having taken possession of the petitioner's office, records, and computer systems during a SARFAESI proceeding. This prevented the petitioner from accessing necessary documents to file an objection to the PCIT's notice. The High Court, in an interim order, directed the SBI to grant supervised access to the petitioner for records and copies within two weeks, and stayed PCIT proceedings for four weeks. Subsequently, the SBI confirmed that access was granted, enabling the petitioner to file objections.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an extension of time to file objections to the notice issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Ext.P4) due to circumstances beyond his control? The petitioner argued that due to the 2nd respondent-Bank taking possession of his business premises and records under SARFAESI proceedings, he was unable to access the necessary documents to file his objections to Ext.P4. He sought a direction to keep further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 in abeyance until he could access these records. The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the delay in filing objections, but their representative took notice of the writ petition. The 2nd respondent-Bank, through its Standing Counsel, submitted that pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner was granted access to the records.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNE AY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 7826 OF 2022 PETITIONER G.PRADEEP KUMAR AGED 52 YEARS S/O. LATE K.V. GOPALAN ACHARI, VIJAYAPURATH HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGOM P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689102. BY ADVS. SADCHITH.P.KURUP C.P.ANIL RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI - 682001. 2 STATE BANK OF INDIA THIRUVALLA MAIN BRANCH, M.C. ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689101, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADVS. P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

: 2 : J U D G M E N T Dated this the 15th day of June, 2022 The petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of M/s. Rajan Jewellery, has filed the writ petition, seeking to direct the 1st respondent to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4, until such time the petitioner is able to have access to the records, computer system and books of account kept in the custody of the 2nd respondent.

The petitioner states that in a SARFAESI proceeding, the 2nd respondent- Bank took possession of the office and all official records of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner could not file objection to Ext.P4 notice issued by the Officer of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi, Income Tax Department. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

: 3 :

When the writ petition came up for consideration on 09.03.2022, this Court passed the following interim order: “Sri Jose Joseph takes notice for the 1st respondent. Sri. Jithesh Menon takes notice for the 2nd respondent. Since I am prima facie satisfied that the time stipulated for production of details is not sufficient in the peculiar nature of the circumstances that arises in the case, the consideration of the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 ought to be kept in abeyance for a period of 4 weeks.

In the meantime, in order to make available the required details to the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent shall grant access to the petitioner under proper supervision to take records/copies of the documents to be produced before the 1st respondent. The permission for such access shall be granted within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

The Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Bank submits that pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner was given access to the official records. In view of the said development, the petitioner can very well file objections on Ext.P4 and such objections can be considered by the Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, in accordance with law. In the afore facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file his objections on Ext.P4, within a period of two weeks. The 1st : 4 : respondent shall pass orders pursuant thereto, within a further period of one month. N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/20.06.2022 : 5 :

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7826/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CON.CASE NO.1848/2019 IN WPC 4561/2019. Exhibit P2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.01.2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.02.2022 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT BANK. Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 21.02.2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 22.02.22 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 COPY OF LETTER DATED 03.03.2022 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.3.2022 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 COPY OF REPLY DATED 7.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →