CRONOS CONTAINERS LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/133/2015HC KeralaKLHC01045973201506 January 2015Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated January 6, 2015, dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning provided is that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the substantive issues raised by the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an adequate alternative remedy exists. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue their statutory remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Cronos Containers Limited, a UK-based company, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and seeks relief against the Deputy Director of Income Tax, International Taxation. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the action of the Deputy Director of Income Tax through a writ petition, considering the availability of alternative remedies. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, Cronos Containers Limited, implicitly argues for the maintainability of the writ petition, likely due to exceptional circumstances or a lack of effective alternative remedy. No specific authorities or precedents are mentioned in the provided text. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel for Income Tax, would likely argue that a writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). No specific authorities or precedents are mentioned 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/16TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 133 of 2015 (N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- CRONOS CONTAINERS LIMITED THAMES HOUSE, MERE PARK, DEDMARE ROAD, MARLOW, BUCKS, SL7 1PB, ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ALLEN JOSEPH.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 6TH FLOOR, KERA BHAVAN, SRVHS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 011. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018.

BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 133 of 2015 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.03.2014 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 1.4.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 246A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY M/S. G.JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES ON 21.04.2014 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 133 of 2015 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2015 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved with the non consideration of the appeal, produced as Ext.P2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department points out that the appeal itself has been filed only on February, 2014 and there are other matters pending consideration before the appellate authority, which have to be given priority. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner however points out that the petitioner is a resident and assessee in the United Kingdom and as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between United Kingdom and India, the petitioner's business carried on within India is exempted from Income Tax. The petitioner also contends that it is a recurring issue which would arise in every assessment year and the refund of tax deduction at source, has also been rejected, which is also the subject matter of

W.P.(C) No. 133/2015 -2- the above appeal. 3. The petitioner having the claim of total exemption as per an agreement between the United Kingdom and India, necessarily the appeal would have to be considered expeditiously. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 appeal shall be taken out of turn and the same shall be considered and disposed of within a period of five months from today. The petitioner shall appear before the appellate authority on or before 19.01.2015 and the petitioner shall be issued with a notice, with the date of posting with acknowledgment and there shall be no separate notice issued on the appellant. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →