M/S. RAJESWARI HOSPITAL (NOW DEFUNCT) vs. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

WP(C)/5681/2015HC KeralaKLHC01051521201523 February 2015Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated February 23, 2015, disposed of the writ petition. The judgment does not provide details of the specific grounds raised by the petitioner or the arguments advanced by the respondents. Consequently, the reasoning behind the Court's decision and the specific findings on any legal issues are not recorded. The operative directions, such as any relief granted, deletion of demand, or remand, are also not specified. It is not stated whether any issue was expressly left undecided. The outcome of the writ petition is not elaborated upon beyond its disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Rajeswari Hospital (now defunct), represented by its former partner Dr. V.P. Devadas, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Income Tax Department. The respondents are the Tax Recovery Officer, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kannur, and the Assistant Registrar of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge, as well as the amount in dispute, are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated upon.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court of Kerala was whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief under its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner, represented by its former partner, sought to challenge an action or order by the Income Tax Department. The respondents, including the Tax Recovery Officer and the Income Tax Officer, were parties to the proceedings. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also involved, as indicated by the impleadment of its Assistant Registrar. The specific legal questions or grounds for challenge, and the arguments presented by the petitioner and the revenue, are not recorded in the provided text. The judgment does not mention any specific provisions of the Income Tax Act or any case law relied upon by either party.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

WP(C).No. 5681 of 2015

I.T.A. NO.476/COCH/2011

ITA. NO.202/COCH/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/4TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 5681 of 2015 (I) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. RAJESWARI HOSPITAL (NOW DEFUNCT) , TALAP KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY DR. V.P.DEVADAS (FORMER PARTNER) RESIDING AT ' BABY HOUSE', NEAR PODUVAL JUNCTION, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, O/O.INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANACHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KANNUR - 670001. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-I AND C-II,KENDRIYA BHAVAN, OPP. CSEZ, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 672037. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ WP(C).No. 5681 of 2015 (I) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2011 IN I.T.A.NO.11/CNR/CIT/CLT/09-10 ISSUED BY THE CIT(A). P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2012 IN I.T.A. NO.476/COCH/2011 ISSUED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2014 IN ITA. NO.90/KNR/CITCLT/2012-13 ISSUED BY THE CIT(A). P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2014 IN ITA. NO.202/COCH/2014 ISSUED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION DATED 08.08.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P9: TRUE COPY FO THE LETTER NO.TR.11/CNR/14-15 DATED 12.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.T.R.11/KNR/2014-15 DATED 02.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P11: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT FOR RS.1 LAKH DATED 21.11.2014. P12: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 20.12.2014 FOR RS.5,87,033/- RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: - NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/ A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.5681 of 2015 ............................................................. Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2015

J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the Appellate Tribunal which, according to the petitioner, was passed without hearing him, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 restoration application which is pending before the 3rd respondent Tribunal. The limited prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is for a direction to the 3rd respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 restoration application filed before him, and till such time to keep in abeyance further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 notice.

I have heard Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 restoration application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10 notices shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the 3rd respondent passes orders as directed and communicates the same to the petitioner.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →