E.K.VASAN vs. AGRL.INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/33187/2007HC KeralaKLHC01071856200712 November 2007Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner's contention that the writ petition is maintainable because the TRC was rejected as not maintainable is misconceived. The Court noted that Ext.P7 clearly indicates that the TRC was rejected because the finding rendered by the Tribunal in Ext.P3 was purely on a question of fact and could not be construed as a question of law. The High Court reasoned that after having an order rejecting the TRC on this basis, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the very same order by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the writ petition fails. The operative direction is that the writ petition is dismissed. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, E.K. Vasan, is challenging an order of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Ext.P3) dated September 6, 2001, which rejected his application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The assessment year in question is 1990-91. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was rejected (Ext.P2). Subsequently, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal (Ext.P4) along with an application for condonation of delay (Ext.P5). The Tribunal rejected the condonation application via Ext.P3. The petitioner then filed a Tax Revision Case (TRC No. 571/01) against Ext.P3, which was also rejected by the High Court of Kerala on September 5, 2007 (Ext.P7) on the grounds that the Tribunal's finding was purely on a question of fact. Following this, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, leading him to file the present writ petition challenging Ext.P3.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable challenging an order (Ext.P3) which was the subject matter of a Tax Revision Case (TRC No. 571/01) that was already rejected by the High Court. The petitioner contended that since the TRC was rejected as not maintainable, the present writ petition is maintainable. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. 2. Whether the High Court's rejection of the TRC on the grounds that the Tribunal's finding was purely on a question of fact precludes the petitioner from challenging the same order under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner's argument was that the rejection of the TRC as not maintainable opened the door for a writ petition. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

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 ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1929 WP(C).No. 33187 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ E.K. VASAN, GOKULAM ESTATE, CHUNDALE P.O., WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, VYTHIRI AT KALPETTA. 2. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX, KOZHIKODE. 3. KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), VYTHIRI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 33187 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2007

J U D G M E N T In relation to the assessment year 1990-91, Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. Petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate authority.

That was rejected by Ext.P2. Petitioner pursued the matter in appeal before the Tribunal by filing Ext.P4 along with Ext.P5 application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 6.9.2001. Against Ext.P3 order, petitioner filed TRC No.571/01. That was also rejected by Ext.P7 order dated 5.9.2007. Subsequently, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Thereupon petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order, which as I have already stated, was the subject matter of TRC No.571/01. 2. Petitioner contends that since the TRC was rejected as not maintainable, this writ petition is maintainable. In my view his contention is misconceived. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that this Court rejected the TRC for the reason that the finding rendered by Page numbers the Tribunal in Ext.P3 was purely on a question of fact and could never be construed as a question of law. It is on that basis the TRC was held to be not maintainable. After inviting an order rejecting the TRC as above, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the very same order by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vps Page numbers

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →