AMBADY KRISHNA MENON vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/10577/2021HC KeralaKLHC01028940202125 May 2021Author: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, having heard both sides, directed the 1st respondent (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) to consider and dispose of Ext.P12 request made by the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court ordered that the petitioner be put on notice regarding Ext.P12, a hearing be conducted through video conferencing, and orders be passed within one week. The Court did not explicitly rule on whether the interest qualified as 'disputed interest' but rather focused on the procedural aspect of considering the petitioner's request. The operative direction was to consider the request and pass orders expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ambady Krishna Menon, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) to consider his request (Ext.P12) under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Ext.P7 scheme). The petitioner's application under the scheme (Ext.P8) was rejected (Ext.P9) on the grounds that the interest pending did not qualify as 'disputed interest' under Section 2(1)(h) of the Act. The petitioner argued that since he had filed a writ petition against an order rejecting his request for waiver of interest, the interest should be considered disputed. The respondents contended that only interest arising from a statutory appeal against an order under Section 143 or 147 would qualify as disputed interest, not interest arising from a writ petition against a waiver order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the interest pending in respect of the petitioner qualifies as 'disputed interest' under Section 2(1)(h) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, when the petitioner has filed a writ petition against an order rejecting a request for waiver of interest, rather than a statutory appeal against the original assessment order. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that having preferred a writ petition against the order rejecting the waiver of interest, the interest should be considered disputed interest within the ambit of the scheme. The petitioner also sought consideration of Ext.P12 after a hearing. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that Section 2(1)(h) of the Act specifically requires a statutory appeal against the original assessment order (under Section 143 or 147) for the interest to be classified as disputed interest. Filing a writ petition against an order rejecting a waiver request does not meet this criterion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(1)(h),Section 143,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP(C) NO. 10577 OF 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 10577 OF 2021 PETITIONER: 0 AMBADY KRISHNA MENON AGED 79 YEARS S/O. RAMAN MENON, AMBADY REGREAT, CHILAVANOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682020. BY ADVS. P.SATHISAN SMT.DONA AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS: 1 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1, RANGE - 1, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 4 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NEW DELHI - 400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS EX-OFFICIO MEMBER SECRETARY. 5 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 6 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. SC NAVNEETH N NATH FOR JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 10577 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the 1st respond- ent to consider Ext.P12 request made by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P7 scheme after hearing the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P8 application preferred by the peti- tioner under Ext.P7 scheme has been rejected by Ext.P9, stating that the interest pending in respect of the petitioner does not qualify as disputed interest as per Section 2(1)(h) of the DTVSV Act, 2020. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the peti- tioner has preferred a writ petition against the order rejecting the re- quest for waiver of interest and that the interest therefore comes within the ambit of disputed interest in terms of the scheme. It is fur- ther submitted that Ext.P12 request made by the petitioner is liable to be considered after hearing the petitioner as well.

2.

The learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax would vehe- mently contend that Section 2 (1)(h) of the Act specifically provides that it is only in cases where a statutory appeal has been preferred against the original order under Section 143 or 147 that the interest would fall within the ambit of disputed interest and that the prefer-

WP(C) NO. 10577 OF 2021

3

ring of a writ petition by the petitioner against an order rejecting the request for waiver of interest would not qualify in terms of the scheme. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner has already approached the 1st re- spondent with Ext.P12, the same can be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by the 1st respondent. There will, according- ly, be a direction to the 1st respondent to put the petitioner on notice on Ext.P12 and to conduct a hearing through video conferencing and pass orders within a week on Ext.P12. Orders shall be passed as ex- peditiously as possible, at any rate, within the period of one week as stated above.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly. ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE SVP

WP(C) NO. 10577 OF 2021

4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX ANNEXURE/EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.06.2014. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2a TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.01.2015 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2015. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING EXHIBIT P3 DATED 22.09.2015. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF WRIT PETITION NO.37788 OF 2015. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN EXT.P5 WRIT PETITION. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 17.03.2020. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION OF EXT.P8 APPLICATION, RECEIPT NO.870709450231220. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION OF EXT.P10 APPLICATION, RECEIPT NO.233527901300121. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →