THOMAS NADACKAL PAUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD IV, KOTTAYAM

WP(C)/15429/2012HC KeralaKLHC01057507201204 July 2012Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated July 4, 2012, did not decide the merits of the assessment proceedings. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal against the assessment order. Therefore, the writ petition was not entertained on its merits. The operative direction was for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and seek appropriate relief. The Court did not make any findings on the validity of the assessment or the undisclosed income.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thomas Nadackal Paul, operating as NTP Corporation, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-4, Kottayam. The petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment proceedings initiated against him. The respondents include the ITO, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner has also impleaded the Branch Managers of State Bank of Travancore and Federal Bank, Ettumanoor, as respondents. The writ petition seeks to quash the assessment order and any consequential proceedings. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not detailed in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer are valid and in accordance with law, particularly concerning the alleged undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee's contentions are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. However, the filing of a writ petition suggests a challenge to the assessment order, likely arguing procedural irregularities, lack of proper opportunity, or incorrect application of law by the Assessing Officer. The revenue's contentions, as represented by the Income Tax Officer and other revenue authorities, would typically involve justifying the assessment based on the information available to them, asserting the validity of the assessment proceedings, and demonstrating that the undisclosed income was correctly brought to tax. Specific authorities or precedents relied upon by either side are not recorded in the provided judgment excerpt.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2012/13TH ASHADHA 1934 WP(C).No. 15429 of 2012 (C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THOMAS NADACKAL PAUL, N T P CORPORATION, N T P BUILDINGS, CENTRAL JUNCTION, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 631. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WARD-4, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, RANGE KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV,

KERA BHAVAN, COCHIN-682 016. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PALA ROAD,

ETTUMANOOR-686 631. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

FEDERAL BANK, PALA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR-686 631. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C, R4 BY SRI. K.S. DILIP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).NO.15429/2012-C: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A Y 2009-10. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE A Y 2009-10. EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE 26.6.2012 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 226(3) TO THE BANK. EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.6.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.15429 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the coercive steps being taken by the respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the liability to be satisfied by the petitioner, without any regard to the pendency of the appeal before the 3 rd respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the assessment was finalized in respect of the assessment year 2009-2010 by the second respondent as borne by Ext.P1 dated 30.12.2011 and demand notice was followed as borne by Ext.P2. The petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal as early as in January, 2012. But in spite of the specific contentions raised by the petitioner, the concerned authority has not granted any interim stay; particularly in exercise of the power under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, which made the petitioner to approach this Court, more so, when the respondents have given adverse instructions to the bankers of the petitioner, i.e., respondents 4 and 5, whereby the bank accounts of the petitioner came to be freezed, which in turn is also sought to be intercepted in this writ petition. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Income Tax Department submits that, despite the

W.P.C. No. 15429 of 2012 -2- filing of appeal in January 2012, there is no case for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a proper petition for stay either before the appellate authority or a petition under Section 220(6) before the assessing authority, seeking for any relief. This being the position, it is not correct and proper for the petitioner to contend that it was for the concerned authority to have granted relief automatically. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court leaves it open to the petitioner either to file a petition under Section 220(6) before the first respondent or to file an I.A. for stay before the 3 rd respondent/appellate authority. If any such petition is filed by the petitioner, before the concerned respondent, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed within 'one week' of filing the petition. Status quo shall be maintained with regard to Ext.P6 for a period of two weeks. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Kp/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →