MATHAI EAPEN VETTATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/8589/2017HC KeralaKLHC01056536201723 May 2017Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the assessment order. The court noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the assessment order before the first appellate authority, and this appeal was pending. The dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue the appellate remedy. The court clarified that the interim stay of further proceedings for recovery of amounts confirmed by the assessment order would continue until the appellate authority passes an order in the petitioner's appeal and communicates it to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition is generally not maintainable when an effective alternative remedy, such as an appeal, is available and has been pursued.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mathai Eapen Vettath, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order dated December 28, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Non Corporate Ward-1(3), Kochi, for the assessment year 2014-2015. The petitioner had also received a demand notice on the same date. The High Court had admitted the writ petition and granted an interim stay of further proceedings for two months. However, when the matter was heard again, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that an appeal against the assessment order had already been filed before the first appellate authority and was pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available and has been availed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner had approached the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the assessment order. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding why the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an appeal, beyond the fact that the appeal was pending. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the High Court's decision implies that the revenue's position, or the court's own consideration of the available remedies, led to the dismissal of the writ petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2017/2ND JYAISHTA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8589 of 2017 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MATHAI EAPEN VETTATH, S/O. EAPEN MATHAI, AGED 57, VETTATH SWAROOPAM ESTATE, NJEEZHOOR P.O., VAIKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-1(3), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-2, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.

BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs.

WP(C).No. 8589 of 2017 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATED DATED 24/09/2016 FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, EDAKKATTUVAYAL KRISHI BHAVAN.

EXT.P2 A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.2016.

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.12.2016.

EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE TO APPEAR ON 28/12/2016. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09/12/2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.

EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITIONER'S CASE FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.8589 of 2017 ............................................................. Dated this the 23nd day of May, 2017 J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 order of assessment under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-2015. While the writ petition was admitted and an interim stay of further proceedings granted for a period of two months by an interim order dated 05.04.2017, when the matter was taken up for orders today, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against Ext.P2 assessment order, he has already approached the 1st appellate authority under the Income Tax Act through an appeal against Ext.P2 order and the same is pending consideration before the said authority. Taking note of the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy against Ext.P2 order, the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P2 order is dismissed.

W.P.(C).No.8589 of 2017 I make it clear that the interim stay against further proceedings for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Extr.P2 assessment order, that was granted by this Court, shall continue to be in force till such time as the appellate authority passes orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P2 assessment order and communicates the same to the petitioner.

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns/23.05.17

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →