Vemula Veera Raghava Reddy vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)

PDF · subscribers
WP/28503/2026HC TelanganaHBHC01059087202630 September 2026Author: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order, being an appealable order under Section 153(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the grounds raised by the petitioner being related to the merits of the case, it was not justified to entertain the writ petition at that juncture. The court found that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available under the Act itself. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and reserved the petitioner's right to avail the alternative remedy. If the petitioner files an appeal, the authorities are expected to decide it strictly on its merits and in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vemula Veera Raghava Reddy Lakshmamma Educational Society, represented by Vemula Malla Reddy, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenged an order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad (Respondent No. 1). This order rejected the petitioner's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring the rejection illegal and arbitrary, and to set aside the order. The respondents were the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(3), Hyderabad.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order rejecting registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the action of the respondent in rejecting the application was illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 265 of the Constitution of India, and that the order lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner sought to have the order set aside. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue would have relied on the availability of the alternative remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 153(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
13447 | IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:2 8503 0F 2026 Between: VemulaVeeraRaghavaReddy,LakshmammaEducationalSocietyl-402, ffaeOcnaftVl, (M) Niar Water iank Housing Board Ranga Reddy 501401' Telangana'Represented By Vemula Malla Reddy PAN AABTV0832E ...PETITIONER AND 1. Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad' Aayakar Bhavan' Baheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004, Telangana' 2. The lncorie Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(3), Hyderabad Aayakar Bhavan' Baheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004' Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Action of the Respondent No 'l in rejecting the application of the Petitioner herein vide Order under Form lOADoftheActdated29.06.2026,andanysubsequentproceedingsaS illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia, and Set aside the Order under Form 't OAD of the Act dated 29'06 2026 of the Act, and any consequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction' . l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to keep the lmpugned Order lated 2910612026 and any other consequential proceedings in abeyance. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VIJHAY K PUNNA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX

The Court made tlle following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.28503 OF 2026 CNR No: H8HC010590872026 30.09.2026 Between: Vemula Veera Raghava Reddy Lakshmamma Educational Society . . .Petitioner AND Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad and another . . Respondents $DEB, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. P Soma Shekar Reddy and Ms. Himaja Kandukuri, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondent. Perused the record

2.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 29.06.2026, whereby, the respondent-authorities rejected the registration of the petitioner under Section 12AB of the Income Tax ) J Act, 1961 (for short "the Act")

2

3.

At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that, in view of Section:153(1) (c) of the Act, the impugned order also being an appealable :rder, the grounds raised by the petitioner also being grounds which are matching the merits of the case, it could not be justified at this juncture to entertain the Writ Petition, when the petitioner hrs an alternative statutory remedy under the statute itself, 4. ln vie r of the same, reserving the right of the petitioner to avail the aforesaid remedy, present Writ Petition stands dismissed on the grounrl of availability of an alternative statutory remedy

5.

It is miLde clear that this Bench has not expressed any opinion on the merit:; of the case. If the petitioner files the appeal, the authorities ar: expected to decide the appeal, strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscell;rneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed //II P.Q.SULEKHA DEV| ASSTST{NT REGTSTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 2 To Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemption), Hyderal Baheerbagh. Hvourro"J --soooo4, Telangan a. _- * :ad' Aayakar Bhavan, jl: lngome T;x Officer Exemption Ward 1(3). Hvderr Baheerbaoh H ro"raorj --ioooo+, Teranqana abad Aayakar ghavan, \

3.

One CC to SRI P.SOMA SHEKAR REDDV, Advocate tOpUCl

4.

One CC to SRt VTJHAY K PUNNA, SENTOR STANDTNG COUNSEL FOR TNCOME TAX [OPUC]

5.

Two CD Copies PSK. TKS

HIGH COUIIT DATED: 30i0912026 ORDER wP.No.285(r3 0f 2026 t I A T s e 1H r4r (.( d 02Nr)l/2026 { ,1.2/ t (-O r'^TtlP DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →