BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD vs. THE ASSISANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/31198/2018HC KeralaKLHC01071103201821 November 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Department to consider the petitioner's representation (Ext.P6) and pass orders expeditiously within one month. The Standing Counsel for the Department assured the Court that if the petitioner undertakes to pay the arrears due, the Department will lift the lien in accordance with law and release the remaining seized gold. The Court's decision is based on the assurance given by the revenue and the need for expeditious disposal of the petitioner's representation. The specific legal arguments regarding the adjustment of refund or the validity of the lien were not adjudicated upon by the Court, as the matter was resolved through the Department's assurance and the Court's direction for expeditious consideration of the petitioner's representation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner's business premises were searched in 1995, leading to the seizure of 800 gms of gold. The assessment was completed in 2004. Following the search and seizure, the Department exercised a statutory lien over the petitioner's property via Ext.P4. A consequential order (Ext.P1) indicated the petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 3,18,368/-. However, the Department intended to adjust this refund against a demand due for the assessment year 1999-2000. The petitioner wished to pay the balance amount and have the lien lifted, submitting a representation (Ext.P6) for this purpose, which led to the filing of this writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Department should consider the petitioner's representation (Ext.P6) for lifting the lien on his property after adjusting the refund against the demand for assessment year 1999-2000. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks consideration of his representation (Ext.P6) to pay the balance demand after adjusting the refund and consequently have the statutory lien on his property lifted. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel assured the Court that if the petitioner undertakes to pay the arrears due to the Department, the lien will be lifted in accordance with law, and the remaining seized gold will be released. The judgment does not explicitly state arguments from the revenue regarding the adjustment of refund or the legality of the lien itself, beyond the assurance of lifting it upon payment of arrears.

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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 31198 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD AGED 69 YEARS ARUNODAYAM BUNGALOW, MAMPALLIKUNNAM, CHATHANNOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 572. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM - 691 001. 2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 3 TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM 695001 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 31198 of 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner had its business premises searched in 1995. Then the Department seized 800 gms. of gold and completed the assessment in 2004. Because of the search and seizure, the Department exercised statutory lien, through Ext.P4, over the petitioner's property.

2.

Later, the Department passed the Ext.P1 consequential order. As seen from it, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs.3,18,368/-, but the department desires to adjust it towards the demand due for the assessment year 1999-2000. Thus adjusted, the petitioner wants to pay the balance amount and get the lien lifted. In that regard, he has submitted the Ext.P6 representation. Seeking its consideration, he has filed this writ petition.

3.

In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the Standing Counsel assures the Court that if the petitioner undertakes to pay the arrears due to the department, it will certainly lift the lien in accordance with law. Besides that, it will also release the remaining gold, for earlier the Department returned a part of the seized gold to the petitioner.

-3- W.P.(C). No. 31198 of 2018 Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition holding that the department will consider the petitioner's Ext.P6 representation and pass orders, expeditiously, in one month. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 25.4.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 8TH JANUARY, 2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 11.6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT -4- W.P.(C). No. 31198 of 2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 23.8.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF INVENTORY SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH EXHIBIT P8 TYPED COPY OF THE INVENTORY SEIZED

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →