MARYMATHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/21585/2021HC KeralaKLHC01055206202112 October 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court found substantial force in the respondent's submission that when an alternate statutory remedy exists, a writ petition can only be entertained if the order is non-est or passed without jurisdiction. The petitioner's sole ground for challenging the assessment order was that their objections were not properly considered and that the order lacked reasons. The Court concluded that Ext.P22 could not be considered void in law on these grounds. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to pursue their alternate statutory remedy. The Court explicitly stated that it was not entering into the merits of the rival contentions or assessing Ext.P22.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order, identified as Ext.P22. The petitioner contended that the assessment order lacked reasons for the conclusions reached, particularly concerning additions made. The respondent, the National Faceless Assessment Centre, argued that the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard and their objections (Exts.P13, P18, P20, and P21) were considered and answered. The respondent asserted that if the petitioner disagreed with how their objections were addressed, their recourse was through the statutory remedy available, not a writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order (Ext.P22) is liable to be quashed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it lacks reasons for the conclusions reached and for the additions made, despite the existence of an alternate statutory remedy? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was justified because Ext.P22, the assessment order, provided no reasons for its conclusions, especially regarding the additions made. They relied on the principle that orders must be reasoned. Revenue's contentions: The respondent submitted that the petitioner had an opportunity to be heard, and their objections were considered and answered on merits. Therefore, any grievance regarding the manner in which the objections were dealt with should be pursued through the available statutory remedy, not a writ petition. They cited a catena of judgments from the High Court and the Supreme Court.

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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 20TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21585 OF 2021 PETITIONER: M/S.MARYMATHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., MARYMATHA SQUARE, ARAKKUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM 686 661, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SABU CHERIAN BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 100 001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI NAVANEETH N NATH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 21585 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner impugns Ext.P22 assessment, however, conceding that they have an alternate statutory remedy against the same.

2.

Shri.Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client is justified in having approached this Court because, in Ext.P22, no reasons have been stated in support of the conclusions therein, particularly with respect to the additions that have been claimed by his client.

3.

Shri.Navaneeth N.Nath, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P22, the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard before the assessment was completed and their objections, namely Ext.P13,P18,P20 and P21, were considered on their merits, but answered in a particular manner. He submitted that, therefore, if the petitioner has a case against the manner in which the Assessment Officer has considered and WP(C) NO. 21585 OF 2021 3 answered their objections, their remedy is not to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to challenge the same, invoking their alternate statutory remedy.

4.

I find substantial force in the submissions of Shri.Navaneeth N.Nath, because the law is now well settled - through a catena of judgments of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - that when there is an alternate statutory remedy, a challenge to the order can be impelled before this Court only on the ground that it is either non-est or issued without juri iction. However, in the case at hand, the only reason stated by the petitioner is that their objections, namely Exts.P13,P18,P20 and P21, were not properly considered and that no reasons have been given in Ext.P22 as to why they have been found to be not acceptable.

5.

I am, therefore, of the firm view that Ext.P22 cannot be found to be void in law; and that, therefore, the petitioner must challenge it as per the statutory remedies available to them.

WP(C) NO. 21585 OF 2021 4 In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of any of the rival contentions and without assessing Ext.P22 in any manner, I close this writ petition; however leaving full liberty to the petitioner to invoke their alternate statutory remedy, as may be available to them in law. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/12.10

WP(C) NO. 21585 OF 2021 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21585/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E- VERIFICATION), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Exhibit P2 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 COPY OF NOTICE U/S.142(1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P6 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P8 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 COPY OF NOTICE U/S.142(1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P10 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P12 COPY OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P13(A) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RESPONDENT WP(C) NO. 21585 OF 2021 6 FOR THE ABOVE REPLY Exhibit P14 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P15 COPY OF E-MAIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P16 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P17 COPY OF SHOW NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P18 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE TO THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P18(A) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P18(A) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P19 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P20 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P21 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P21(A) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P22 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →