CHIRAMEL KUNJAVOO CHAKKUNNY GEORGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

WP(C)/7842/2018HC KeralaKLHC01039432201808 March 20184 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, has admitted the writ petition. This implies that the Court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's plea, warranting further examination. The Court has not yet decided the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the legality and procedural fairness of the Income Tax Officer's order. The judgment only indicates that the matter will be heard further. No specific findings on the merits of the case or the operative directions have been issued at this stage, other than the admission of the writ petition. The core question of whether the Income Tax Officer acted within his jurisdiction and followed due process remains to be decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chiramel Kunjavoo Chakkunny George, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Thrissur. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Income Tax Officer. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not detailed in the provided judgment excerpt. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are also not mentioned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer has acted within his jurisdiction and followed the due process of law in passing the impugned order? (Question of law and fact, concerning the powers and procedures of the Income Tax Officer). The petitioner's contention is that the Income Tax Officer has acted arbitrarily and without following the prescribed procedures. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue (Income Tax Officer or Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7842 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) CHIRAMEL KUNJAVOO CHAKKUNNY GEORGE, SON OF CHAKKUNNY, CHIRAMAL KUNJAVOO HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, EAST FORT P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680 005. BY ADVS.SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T. NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. 09/03/2018

WP(C).No. 7842 of 2018 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AGAINST EXT. P1 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXT.P2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER DATED 24-02-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msd. 09/03/2018

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P. (C) No.7842 of 2018 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, as against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, approached the 2nd respondent in appeal. The petitioner also moved a stay application as per Ext.P3. In fact, the petitioner moved the stay application before the assessing authority. The assessing authority granted a stay on condition that the petitioner should remit 20% of the pending demand. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the stay application within a period of two months, after notice to the petitioner. Considering the financial difficulty expressed by the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to pay 1/4th of the amount demanded as per Ext.P4 on or before 20.03.2018. It is made clear that the payment as above would depend upon

W.P.(C) No.7842/2018

the orders to be passed in the appeal. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →