KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/4277/2018HC KeralaKLHC01035867201808 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated February 8, 2018, dismissed the writ petition filed by Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd. The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the petitioner has the right to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the High Court declined to interfere with the assessment proceedings at this stage. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue their statutory remedy. No specific issues regarding the merits of the income tax assessment were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner is aggrieved by an order from the Assistant Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is also a respondent, suggesting an appeal process has occurred or is ongoing. The amount in dispute is not mentioned. The writ petition is filed for admission.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ petition against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, given the availability of alternative remedies. The petitioner likely contends that the writ petition is maintainable due to specific circumstances, such as a violation of principles of natural justice or a patent illegality in the assessment order. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), would likely argue that a writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that might be relevant to the underlying assessment are not detailed in the provided text, but the issue revolves around the maintainability of a writ petition in the face of statutory appeal mechanisms.

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 THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 19TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 4277 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD. SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, P.B.NO.2263, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR (MALLYA) SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ RESPONDENT(S): 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 4277 of 2018 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOICE UNDER S. 142 DATED 13.11.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04.10.2017 ISSUED BY EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.11.2017 ISSUED BY EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.12.2017 ISSUED BY EXHIBIT P2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER S. 220(6) FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PS TO JUDGE. Kvs/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.4277 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of February, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent under the Income Tax Act (the Act). The self assessment made by the petitioner for the year 2015-'16 has been revised by the first respondent in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act. Ext.P3 is the order of assessment. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P5 is the application preferred by the petitioner for stay in Ext.P4 appeal. It is seen that pending disposal of Ext.P4 appeal, the petitioner approached the assessing authority invoking Section 220(6) of the Act, and the assessing authority passed Ext.P7 order directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax in the light of the directions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The grievance of the petitioner concerns Ext.P7 order. According to the petitioner, on the facts of the present case, such an order is not justified. The petitioner,

WPC.No.4277 of 2018

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. 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.P5 application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P4 appeal, 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 a decision is taken on Ext.P5 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P3 order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- ( true copy )

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →