AHAMED P.B. vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/682/2020HC KeralaKLHC01002197202016 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment dated January 16, 2020, considered the submission made by the petitioner's counsel. The counsel, on instructions from the party, indicated that the petitioner intended to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner sought liberty to work out his remedies by filing statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with stay and delay condonation applications. The court granted this liberty to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The court did not decide on the merits of the challenge to the sale notice (Ext.P10) or the validity of the CBDT circular (Ext.P11) regarding the pre-deposit requirement. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ahammed P.B., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging a sale notice (Ext.P10) and seeking a declaration that a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) (Ext.P11) incorrectly mandates a pre-deposit of 20% of the demand for availing statutory remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner intended to file statutory appeals against assessment orders (Exts.P1 to P7) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with stay and delay condonation applications. The petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the present writ petition to pursue these statutory remedies, including filing a fresh petition after incorporating subsequent developments and impleading the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Ext.P10 sale notice is liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order. (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether Ext.P11 circular issued by the 1st respondent (CBDT) imposes a mandate of pre-deposit of 20% of the demand for availing statutory remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and if the 1st respondent has the authority to issue such a mandate interfering with the assessee's right to file statutory appeals. (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner's counsel, based on instructions, submitted that the petitioner was advised to file statutory appeals along with stay and delay condonation applications before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner sought to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one after making necessary averments regarding subsequent factual developments and impleading the appellate authority. The petitioner also sought to challenge Ext.P10 sale notice and declare that Ext.P11 circular does not mandate a 20% pre-deposit for statutory appeals. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions from the revenue are recorded in the provided judgment excerpt.

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 ALEXANDER THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.682 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER: AHAMED P.B. AGED 61 YEARS S/O. THE LATE BEERAN MOIDEEN HAJI, ADINHARE MOOLA P.O. VIDYANAGAR KASARGOD 671 123. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.T.BIJU SMT.T.THASMI SMT.NANDINI R.S. RESPONDENTS: 1 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE ,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI ,NEW DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KANNUR RANGE KANNUR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KANNOTHUMCHAL, CHOVVA P.O. KANNUR 670 006. 3 TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, CENTRAL INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, ROOM NO. 320, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 001. 4 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KASARGOD, VIDYANAGAR, KASARGOD 671 123. 5 TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, CENTRAL INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOCHI 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS M G ROAD, COCHIN 682 011. R1-5 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.682 OF 2020(I) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J ============================ W.P.(C). NO. 682 OF 2020 ============================================== Dated this the 16th day of January 2020

J U D G M E N T The prayers in the above writ petition civil are as follows: i) to call for the records leading to issue Ext.P10 sale notice and issue a writ of certiorari, or any other writ or order or to quash Ext.P10 sale notice ii) To declare that, in Ext.P11 circular issued by the 1st respondent, there is no mandate of pre-deposit of 20% of the demand for availing the statutory remedy under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the 1st respondent has no authority to issue such mandate interfering with the right of the assessee to file statutory appeals. iii) Direct the respondents to pay cost of this proceedings.

2.

Sri. K.P. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit on the basis of instruction from the party that he was advised to file statutory appeals along with stay application and delay condonation applications before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerned to challenge the impugned Exts.P1 to P7 assessment orders and then to file a fresh copy of this writ petition (Civil) after making necessary averments in relation to not only the matters now raised in this WP(C), but also the subsequent factual developments and also by producing such statutory

WP(C).No.682 OF 2020(I) 3 appeals and after impleading the appellate authority concerned and that leave may be granted to withdraw the above said writ petition (civil) with such liberty as afore stated. Liberty is accorded to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. With the said liberty, the above writ petition (civil) will stand dismissed as withdrawn. ALEXANDER THOMAS Nsd //// PA to Judge JUDGE

WP(C).No.682 OF 2020(I) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PAN ADUPA2525K FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DATED 30.03.2015. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PAN ADUPA2525K FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DATED 30.03.2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PAN ADUPA2525K FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DATED 30.03.2015. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PAN ADUPA2525K FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DATED 30.03.2015. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PAN ADUPA2525K FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DATED 30.03.2015. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PAN ADUPA2525K FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DATED 30.03.2015. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PAN ADUPA2525K FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 DATED 29.12.2016. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE F NO. ADUPA2525K/TRO (C) /CC-MANGALORE/2019-20 DATED 16.8.2019. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE NO. TRO/CEN/KOCHI/PBAHAMMED/AUCTION/2019-20 DATED 29.11.2019. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 29/02/2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →