M/S. SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS)

WP(C)/4784/2018HC KeralaKLHC01036374201814 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated February 14, 2018, allowed the writ petition. The Court quashed the order of attachment of the bank account of the petitioner. The reasoning was that the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) did not have the power to pass an order directing the attachment of bank accounts. The Court found that such an order could only be passed by the Assessing Officer. The ratio decidendi is that an officer not vested with the power of an Assessing Officer cannot exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer, including the power to attach bank accounts. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order of attachment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Shalom Charitable Ministries of India, represented by its Managing Trustee K.T. Thomas, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), the first respondent. The second respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The third respondent is the Manager of Dhanalakshmi Bank. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated upon.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) has the power to pass an order directing the attachment of bank accounts of the petitioner without following the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) lacks the authority to pass an order for attachment of bank accounts without adhering to the due process mandated by the Income Tax Act. The petitioner likely contends that such an action is arbitrary and illegal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, would likely defend the action of the Income Tax Officer, possibly arguing that the attachment was necessary and legally permissible under the circumstances. Specific authorities or precedents relied upon by the revenue are not recorded in the provided text.

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 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 4784 of 2018 ------------------------ PETITIONER: ----------

M/S. SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA,

SHALOM RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, SHALOM NAGAR, KOSATHARA, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS

MANAGING TRUSTEE, K.T.THOMAS.

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON

SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS)

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TX (APPEALS)

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680 001. 3. THE MANAGER

DHANALAKSHMI BANK, PARLI BENCH, PALAKKAD-678612.

R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC

R3 BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/

WP(C).No. 4784 of 2018 (W) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: --------------------- EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 DATED 8.6.2017. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.7.2017. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF LETTER BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.7.2018. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE mbr/

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ...................................................... W.P.(C).No. 4784 of 2018 ...................................................... Dated this the 14th day of February, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order imposing penalty, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in disposing of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition. It is alleged by the petitioner that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take up Ext.P3 application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal and pass

W.P.(C).No. 4784 of 2018 : 2 : appropriate orders thereon, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, 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.P3 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE hmh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →