M/S.MINAR ALLOYS & FORGINGS (P)LTD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PALAKKAD

WP(C)/5384/2015HC KeralaKLHC01051224201520 February 2015Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable when a specific statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Income Tax Act. The Court noted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had passed an order, and Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for an appeal to the High Court against such orders. The Court reasoned that the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the assessee to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. No other issues were decided, and no specific amount in dispute was addressed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Minar Alloys & Forgings (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Mohammed Shafi, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Palakkad. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi, and the Tax Recovery Officer, Thrissur, are also impleaded as respondents. 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has passed an order, and the Income Tax Act provides for a statutory appeal to the High Court against such orders. (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee's specific contentions are not recorded in the provided text. However, by filing a writ petition, it is implied that the assessee sought to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism, likely alleging a violation of fundamental rights or a lack of jurisdiction by the lower authorities. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by its Standing Counsel, argued that the writ petition is not maintainable. The revenue contended that the Income Tax Act provides for a specific remedy of appeal to the High Court against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the assessee ought to have availed the statutory remedy instead of approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

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.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/1ST PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 5384 of 2015 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M/S.MINAR ALLOYS & FORGINGS (P)LTD, NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY MOHAMMED SHAFI, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2.INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. REGISTRAR 682030. 3.TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T. NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).NO.5384/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(A): COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2(A): COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3(A): COPYH OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4(A): COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5(A): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.5384 OF 2015 (W) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2015

J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and and P2(a) first appellate orders, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P3 and P3(a) appeals before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeals, the petitioner has also preferred Exts.P4 and P4(a) petitions for condonation of delay and Exts.P5 and P5(a) stay petitions before the 2nd respondent. The apprehension of the petitioner is with regard to the initiation of coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P2 and P2(a) orders, in the meanwhile.

I have heard Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Tojan J. Vathikkulam, the learned Standing counsel appearing 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 the following directions:

W.P.(C).No.5384/2015 2

The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 and P4(a) petitions for condonation of delay and Exts.P5 and P5(a) stay petitions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. 2.Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Exts.P2 and P2(a) orders shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →