JOHNY VARGHESE vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX(INV)

PDF · subscribers

WP(C)/17045/2013HC KeralaKLHC01060239201329 November 2016Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN,HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the first respondent's counsel submitted that an enquiry was ongoing regarding the allegations against the third respondent. Since the enquiry was proceeding in accordance with law, the Court found no necessity to pass any orders in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. The Court explicitly stated that no orders or observations were being made against the third respondent. The specific stage or outcome of the enquiry was not detailed, nor was any specific relief granted to the petitioner beyond the acknowledgement that an enquiry was in progress.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Johny Varghese, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala alleging that despite serious allegations of Income Tax Act violations against the third respondent (K.T. Joy), the first respondent (Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Kochi) and the second respondent (Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala) had failed to conduct an enquiry. The petitioner sought action against the third respondent. The High Court noted that no orders or observations were being made against the third respondent. The first respondent's counsel submitted that an enquiry was ongoing regarding the allegations against the third respondent, but details were not to be divulged in the interest of the State.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the first and second respondents to conduct an enquiry into the alleged violations of the Income Tax Act by the third respondent, and if so, what is the scope of such direction? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner (assessee) contended that no steps had been taken by the revenue authorities (respondents 1 and 2) to conduct an enquiry into serious allegations of Income Tax Act violations against the third respondent. Revenue's Contention: The first respondent (revenue) submitted that an enquiry is ongoing in the matter regarding the allegations against the third respondent, but the stage and materials collected were not to be divulged in the interest of the State.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938 WP(C). No.17045 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- JOHNY VARGHESE, S/O VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, ZEON VILLA, NANDANAM C BLOCK, NERA THIRUVATH TEMPLE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.

BY ADVS.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO SRI.S.MOHAMMED SHIJI RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX(INV), KOCHI.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

K.T. JOY, S/O THOMAS, KUNALIL HOUSE, PUTHURUTHI P.O, ARYAMPALAM VIA, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR-680623.

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-11- 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KRJ

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, CJ & SATHISH NINAN, J -------------------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 17045 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2016 J U D G M E N T Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, CJ The only grievance of the petitioner is that though certain serious allegations are raised against the third respondent in respect of violation of the Income Tax Act, etc., no steps have been taken by the first and second respondents to conduct enquiry. 2. Since we are not passing any orders or making any observation against the third respondent, notice to him may not be necessary while disposing of the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that due enquiry is going on in the matter regarding the allegations against the third respondent. However, the stage of the enquiry and the materials collected may not be required to divulged in the interest of the State. Be that as it may, since the enquiry is being proceeded in accordance with law, no orders are necessary in this writ

W.P(C).17045/13 2 petition. The writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Chief Justice Sd/-

Sathish Ninan, Judge sou.29/11. // True copy // P.A. To Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →