SHRI.AVARA HAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19609/2012HC KeralaKLHC01061685201226 September 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice of demand (Ext.P8) for tax and interest cannot be set aside. The reasoning was that the assessment order (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 1999-2000 had attained finality. This finality was established through the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal to the Tribunal due to a delay, and the subsequent dismissal of his writ petition and writ appeal challenging those orders. Since the assessment order remains intact, a consequential notice of demand, such as Ext.P8, which seeks to recover the tax and interest due under that order, cannot be nullified by the Court. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. Avara Haji, is challenging a notice of demand for tax and interest (Ext.P8) issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Palakkad. This notice pertains to an assessment order (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 1999-2000. The petitioner had appealed the assessment order to the Appellate Commissioner, whose order (Ext.P6) modified the assessment. A subsequent appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was dismissed because the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application to condone a delay of 1270 days in filing the appeal (Ext.P7). The petitioner's previous writ petition challenging these orders was dismissed (Ext.P4), as was a subsequent writ appeal (Ext.P5). The respondents' counsel noted a prior demand notice in 2010, which also led to a dismissed writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice of demand (Ext.P8) for tax and interest can be set aside by this Court, considering that the underlying assessment order (Ext.P1) has attained finality. The petitioner sought to set aside the notice of demand (Ext.P8). The revenue contended that the assessment order (Ext.P1) has attained finality due to previous judicial proceedings, and therefore, a consequential notice of demand cannot be nullified. 2. Whether the petitioner's previous writ petition and writ appeal, which were dismissed, preclude him from challenging the current notice of demand. The revenue argued that the petitioner's previous attempts to challenge the assessment order through writ petitions and appeals were unsuccessful, indicating the finality of the assessment. The petitioner's argument was implicitly that the notice of demand was invalid, despite the finality of the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 19609 of 2012
W.A.1272/2012

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 ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/4TH ASWINA 1934 WP(C).No. 19609 of 2012 (A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHRI.AVARA HAJI, AGED 65 YEARS KATTUKANDAN HOUSE, KULIKKILIYAD P.O., KOTTAPURAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM- 682 012. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PALAKKAD 678 001. 3. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER PALAKKAD- 678 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.19609/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.02.2004. EXHIBIT-P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.11.2006. EXHIBIT-P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE FINANCE DEPT. DT.28.6.2006. EXHIBIT-P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.14204/2012 DT.18.6.2012. EXHIBIT-P5;- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.A.1272/2012 DATED 18.07.2012. EXHIBIT-P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEEALS) DT.21.12.2006. EXHIBIT-P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF A TRIBUNAL DATED 29.03.2012. EXHIBIT-P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LETTER DATED 07.06.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC,J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19609 of 2012 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2012

JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an order of assessment passed against the petitioner under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1999-2000. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, who passed Ext.P6 order, modifying the assessment order. The petitioner filed a further appeal to the Tribunal along with an application to condone delay of 1270 days. By Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal rejected the application to condone delay and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.

2.

Challenging these orders, the petitioner filed W.P.(c) No.14204 of 2012. That writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P4 judgment. Against that judgment, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.1272 of 2012, which was also dismissed by Ext.P5 judgment. In the meanwhile, Ext.P8 notice was issued to the petitioner demanding payment of the tax due together with interest. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed, seeking to set aside Ext.P8 notice.

W.P.(C).No.19609/2012 : 2 :

3.

I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

The standing counsel for the respondents points out that after Ext.P6 order was rendered, the petitioner was issued a notice of demand in the year 2010 and at that stage, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(c) No.16414 of 2010, which was dismissed. It is stated that it was thereafter that appeal was filed to the Tribunal, which resulted in Ext.P7. 5. In this writ petition, the only prayer sought is to direct the respondents to set aside Ext.P8 notice. In my view, such a prayer is misconceived for the reason that Ext.P1 order of assessment has attained finality on account of the proceedings, noticed above. It is demanding tax and interest due under Ext.P1 that Ext.P8 notice has been issued. So long as the assessment order remains intact, a notice of demand, which is consequential in nature, cannot be nullified by this Court. Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →