GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/9535/2017HC KeralaKLHC01057482201713 October 2017Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a statement was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax indicating that he was not the concerned authority and that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, was the correct authority. The court acknowledged that the files had been transmitted to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru. Consequently, the High Court decided to withdraw its earlier judgment dated 21.03.2017 to implead the proper respondent. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, was suo motu impleaded as the additional 2nd respondent. The court directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions on the time required to consider the application. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of by granting six months' time to complete the proceedings, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No specific finding was made on the merits of the petitioner's original grievance, as the focus was on procedural correctness and expeditious resolution.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gopala Krishnan Nair, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order or action by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment years are not explicitly stated, but tax receipts for various periods from 1988 to 2016 are attached as exhibits. The procedural history indicates that initially, the Commissioner of Income Tax was impleaded. However, a statement was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax asserting that he was not the concerned authority and that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, was the correct authority. The files were subsequently transmitted to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru. The High Court, on 21.03.2017, had passed an order which was later withdrawn on 04.08.2017 to implead the proper respondent. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, was suo motu impleaded as the additional 2nd respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum, was the proper authority to consider the petitioner's application, or if the jurisdiction lay with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru. (Question of fact and jurisdiction) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly sought redressal from the Commissioner of Income Tax, implying that this was the appropriate authority to address his grievance. The subsequent impleading of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, suggests a procedural issue regarding the correct forum. Revenue's Contention: The Commissioner of Income Tax, through a statement filed by the Standing Counsel, contended that he was not the concerned authority and that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, held the jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's application. The revenue's counsel also indicated that time was required to complete proceedings by the Bangalore authority.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938 --------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------- GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, TC:NO: 4/2595(1), KURAVANKONAM, KOWIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ATHAM, KRA-A-19, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT : ---------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYA KHAR, KOWDIAR P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

BY SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp

--------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: COPY OF THE DUPLICATE OF THE PARTITION DEED NUMBER 2410/84.

EXHIBIT-P2: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 11/91.

EXHIBIT-P3: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 7/91.

EXHIBIT-P4: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 9/91.

EXHIBIT-P5: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 10/91.

EXHIBIT-P6: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 8/91.

EXHIBIT-P7: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 1/92.

EXHIBIT-P8: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY.

EXHIBIT-P9: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD 12/4/96.

EXHIBIT-P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/9/1996.

EXHIBIT-P11: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DTD 5/12/88.

EXHIBIT-P12: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 98/99.

EXHIBIT-P13: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 02/03.

EXHIBIT-P14: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 05/06.

EXHIBIT-P15: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 07/08.

EXHIBIT-P16: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 08/09.

EXHIBIT-P17: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 09/10.

EXHIBIT-P18: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 10/11.

EXHIBIT-P19: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 11/12.

EXHIBIT-P20: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 13/14.

EXHIBIT-P21: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 14/15.

-------------------------- EXHIBIT-P22: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 15/16.

EXHIBIT-P23: DRAFT COPY OF REPRESENTATION.

EXHIBIT-P24: COPY OF FRONT PAGE OF REPRESENTATION SHOWING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

EXHIBIT-P25: COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------- W.P(C). No.9535 of 2017 [N] ---------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2017 JUDGMENT Read order dated 04.08.2017: “A statement has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, who was impleaded in the writ petition, that he is not the concerned authority, who has to consider the application filed by the petitioner and also submits that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, is the concerned authority. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the said fact came to the notice of the respondent, only when a hearing was conducted as directed in the writ petition. On realising that it is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru who has the jurisdiction to consider the application filed by the petitioner, the entire files have been transmitted to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, is the contention. 2. In such circumstance, it is thought fit that the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.9535 of 2017 on 21.03.2017 be withdrawn, for the purpose of impleading the proper respondent. The judgment in W.P.(C) No.9535 of 2017 would stand withdrawn. 3. “The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru” is suo motu impleaded as the additional 2nd respondent. The learned

W.P(C). No.9535 of 2017 [N]

Standing Counsel is directed to take notice for the additional 2nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel is directed to get instructions as to what time would be required to consider the application. If the learned Standing Counsel also puts forth date of hearing, there shall be a direction to hear the petitioner in the judgment itself. Post on 11.08.2017.” 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the matter is being dealt with by the authority at Bangalore and some time is required to complete the proceedings. In such circumstance, the above writ petition is disposed of, granting six months time to complete the proceedings, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge sp/13/10/17

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →