I.N. RAJESH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

WP(C)/7649/2018HC KeralaKLHC01039239201807 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and then before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The principle established is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue their statutory remedies. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, I.N. Rajesh, proprietor of Goutham Pharma, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The petitioner is seeking relief against the action of the tax authorities. The procedural history involves the petitioner approaching the High Court directly via a writ petition. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Central Board of Direct Taxes, and the Union of India.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to maintain a writ petition against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, given the availability of alternative remedies. The petitioner's argument would likely be that the writ petition is maintainable due to exceptional circumstances or a lack of efficacious alternative remedy. The revenue's contention would be that the petitioner has a statutory right of appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, a writ petition is not maintainable. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act related to appeals and the scope of writ jurisdiction would be central to this dispute.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7649 of 2018 PETITIONER I.N.RAJESH AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR, GOUTHAM PHARMA, COSMOPOLITAN LANE, NEAR RAJI NURSING HOME, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-680120. BY ADVS.SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036. 3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON, C-II/49, SATYA MARG, CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI-110021. 4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE/FINANCE, 128 A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 7649 of 2018 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 27-12-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 27-12-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 27-12-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 25-01-2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2013-14. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 25-01-2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2014-15. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 25-01-2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2015-16. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 09-02-2018 INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.221 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AJGPRO788P/DCIT(CC)/TCR/2017-18 DATED 26-02-2018 REJECTING STAY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 28-02-2018 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7649 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 to P6 appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P9 is the composite application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P4 to P6 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P9 application for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 to P3 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

W.P.(c).No.7649 of 2018 : 2 : also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P9 application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P9 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →