M/S SHARADAMBAL TRUST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6785/2021HC KeralaKLHC01017956202108 July 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, quashed and set aside the impugned order at Ext.P8. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration to the 2nd respondent (The Commissioner of Income Tax). The petitioner was directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 19.07.2021 at 11:00 AM and to abide by further directions. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the 2nd respondent for expeditious decision-making. The principle derived is that where a tax authority concedes to a violation of natural justice and agrees to a fresh adjudication, the High Court will facilitate this by quashing the impugned order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Sharadambal Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenged an order (Ext.P8) passed by the respondents, who are tax authorities. The petitioner alleged non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. The respondents, through their Standing Counsel, indicated their willingness to grant the petitioner another opportunity to present their case and to decide the matter afresh. The respondents proposed that the impugned order be quashed with a direction for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order (Ext.P8) violates the principles of natural justice, warranting its quashing? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner alleged non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The judgment does not explicitly detail the specific violations alleged by the petitioner. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through their Standing Counsel, acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the principles of natural justice. They expressed a desire to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to present their case and to decide the matter afresh. They agreed that the impugned order could be quashed with a direction for fresh consideration.

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 A.M.BADAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 6785 OF 2021 PETITIONER: M/S. SHARADAMBAL TRUST, 44/126 NELISSERY VILLAGE, VADAKKANTHARA P. O., PALAKKAD - 678 012. KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, SMT. THANKAMANI PADMANABAN BY ADV. DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTION WARD, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SANJUAN TOWER, BEHIND CR BUILDING, KOCHI - 682 018. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C). No.6785 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitioner is alleging non compliance of principles of natural justice, respondents are desirous of granting one more opportunity of giving to the petitioner and to decide the matter afresh. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that therefore the impugned order at Ext.P8 can be quashed with a direction to the respondents to decide the matter afresh.

3.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, the impugned order at Ext.P8 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent on 19.07.2021 at 11.00 A.M and then to abide by further directions of the 2nd respondent. Needless to mention

WP(C). No.6785 OF 2021 3 that the petitioner shall co-operate with the 2nd respondent in getting the matter decided expeditiously. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. A.M.BADAR JUDGE SPR

WP(C). No.6785 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6785/2021 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 14.02.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED U/S 10A AND THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF THE FORM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/06/2020 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/07/2020 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPIES OF THE REPLY DATED 21.07.2020 FILED IN RESPONSE TO EXT. P4 NOTICE. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 31.07.2020 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO EXT P3 NOTICE. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE E-FILING PROFILE OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT U/S.12AA(1)(b)(ii) OF THE ACT, DATED 24.02.2021. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →