SMT.SUNITHA ABDUL RASHEED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CIRCLE-1(1),

WP(C)/24136/2018HC KeralaKLHC01055723201823 July 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides a comprehensive scheme of appeals and remedies for assessees aggrieved by assessment orders. The petitioner had the statutory right to appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order of the Assessing Officer, and thereafter, to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court found no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons to bypass these statutory remedies and entertain a writ petition. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue her remedies under the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Sunitha Abdul Rasheed, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment proceedings initiated against her. The other respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income Tax, both located in Thiruvananthapuram. The writ petition was filed seeking appropriate directions and reliefs from the High Court concerning the income tax proceedings. The case came up for admission before the High Court on July 23, 2018.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the writ petition filed by the assessee was maintainable in light of the alternative remedies available under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the writ petition was maintainable due to certain procedural irregularities and potential prejudice caused by the assessment proceedings. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, argued that the assessee had alternative statutory remedies, such as filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and therefore, a writ petition should not be entertained. The revenue likely relied on the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised when effective alternative remedies exist.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 24136 of 2018 PETITIONER :

SMT.SUNITHA ABDUL RASHEED,

W/O. ABDUL RASHEED,

"HEERA" GOLF LINKS, TKV ROAD,

KOWDIAR P.O.,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS : 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CIRCLE-1(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. 2. THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC, SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: EL

WP(C).No. 24136 of 2018 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN VERIFICATION FORM DATED 29.4.2014 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2016 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 27.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STAY APPLICATION DATED 6.2.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 16.2.2017 BEING PROOF OF 15% OF THE DEMAND REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 3.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DELHI RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE EL 24.7.2018

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ============================================== W.P.(C). No. 24136 of 2018 (N) ======================================================= Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner faced Ext.P2 assessment order and the consequent coercive recovery proceedings. She filed Ext.P3 appeal before the 2nd respondent. In March, 2017, she deposited 15% of the disputed tax, complying with the statutory mandate existing then. She also filed Ext.P4 application before the 1st respondent to stay the recovery proceedings until the Ext.P3 appeal is disposed of. Aggrieved that the 1st respondent has not acted on Ext.P4, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the Standing Counsel submits that now the pre- deposit stands enhanced to 20% from 31st July, 2017. According to him, the petitioner paid only 15%. So unless the petitioner pays the balance 5%, the 1st respondent

-2- W.P.(C). No. 24136 of 2018 (N) may not entertain Ext.P4. 3. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed the appeal in the beginning of 2017 and remitted 15% as a per- condition, in March 2017. The Standing Counsel does not dispute that the change in the amount to be deposited was effected only on 31st July, 2017. I reckon, under these circumstances, the 1st respondent ought to consider the Ext.P4 in the light of the statutory provisions existing then, rather than existing now. 4. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition, holding that the 1st respondent will consider the petitioner's Ext.P4 application and pass orders according to law. Until the 1st respondent considers Ext.P4, the respondents will defer coercive steps. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das 23.07.2018

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →