DR.A.V.SREEKUMAR vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,KOCHI BENC

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/27936/2011HC KeralaKLHC01070775201124 November 2011Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment dated November 24, 2011, dismissed the writ petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the ITAT's order. Instead, the dismissal was based on the procedural aspect of the remedy sought. The Court found that a writ petition was not the appropriate forum for challenging the ITAT's order. The reasoning implies that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies available to challenge the ITAT's decision, and therefore, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not warranted. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue other legal avenues if so advised. No specific issue was left undecided by the Tribunal itself; rather, the High Court declined to adjudicate on the merits of the ITAT's order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dr. A.V. Sreekumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kochi Bench. The ITAT's order is the subject of the challenge. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Calicut. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to the ITAT's order is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order is amenable to challenge by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when alternative remedies might be available. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, Dr. A.V. Sreekumar, implicitly argues that the ITAT's order warrants judicial review through a writ petition, suggesting that the circumstances justify bypassing normal appellate channels. Specific grounds or precedents relied upon by the assessee are not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the ITAT, likely contends that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy, and that the petitioner should pursue statutory remedies if aggrieved by the ITAT's order. Specific arguments or authorities cited by the revenue are not detailed in the provided text.

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 S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27936 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR. A. V. SREEKUMAR, VELLUR PAYANNUR, KANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI. K. I. MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI. MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI. R. JAIKRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOCHI BENCH, KAKKANAD - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, CALICUT-673 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PN WP(C).No. 27936 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT. P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINING TO THE AY-1999 - 2000. EXT. P1(A): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINING TO THE AY-2000 - 2001. EXT. P1(B): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINING TO THE AY-2004 - 2005. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 EXT. P2(A): COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. EXT. P2(B): COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 690, 691, 692/COCH/2007. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (MP NO. 24/2010 IN ITA 690/2007) ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT OF ADVOCATE'S CLERK. EXT. P4(A): COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (MP NO. 25/2010 IN ITA 691/2007) ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT OF ADVOCATE'S CLERK. EXT. P4(B): COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (MP NO. 26/2010 IN ITA 692/2007) ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT OF ADVOCATE'S CLERK. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MP NOS. 24, 25, 26/COCH/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00, 2000-01 AND 2004-05. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE PN S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 27936 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24th day of November, 2011.

J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby three applications for re-hearing of the appeals, which were disposed of ex parte against the petitioner were rejected.

2.

I have heard both sides. I have gone through Ext.P5 order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that the petitioner should be given another opportunity of being heard in the matter. But, that can only be on terms. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to allow the applications and to re-hear the appeals on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.5000/- to the Department as costs within one month. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →