VALAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/33789/2014HC KeralaKLHC01079407201407 January 2015Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue concerning the constitutional validity of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had already been dealt with at length in a common judgment passed in WP(C) No. 10334 of 2014 and connected cases on December 20, 2014. The court found that the position established in that common judgment was in favour of the Revenue. Consequently, the High Court saw no reason to interfere with the present case. The writ petition was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition, meaning the notices and the proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department were upheld based on the prior judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Valavoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking to quash notices issued by the Income Tax Department (respondents 1 to 3) and to restrain the third respondent from proceeding with any action based on these notices. The notices were marked as Exhibits P1 to P4. The writ petition was heard on January 7, 2015. The court noted that the issue had been extensively dealt with in other connected cases, specifically WP(C) No. 10334 of 2014 and connected cases, which were decided on December 20, 2014. The challenge in those cases pertained to the constitutional validity of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed on grounds of constitutional invalidity? 2. Whether the third respondent should be restrained from proceeding with action based on the aforementioned notices? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner sought to quash the notices (Exhibits P1 to P4) and restrain the third respondent from taking further action. The specific grounds for challenge are not detailed in the judgment, but the context implies a challenge to the validity of the notices and the proceedings initiated thereunder. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, it refers to a common judgment passed in connected cases that addressed the constitutional validity of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and found the position to be in favour of the Revenue. This implies the revenue likely defended the validity of the notices and the relevant section of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

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 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/17TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 33789 of 2014 (W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VALAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, VALAVOOR P., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BT ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE) KOCHI - 682 018. 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE) NAVARATNAM, VELLAKINAR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ

WP(C).No. 33789 of 2014 (W) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/09/2013. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/10/2013. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17/01/2014. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/06/2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33789 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2015 JUDGMENT The relief sought for are as given below: “A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ order or direction quashing Ext.P1 to P4 notices. B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ order or direction restraining 3rd respondent from proceeding with action under Ext.P1 to P4 notices. C. Pass such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard the matter afresh. 3. The issue has been dealt with by this Court at length, also considering the challenge raised in some other cases as to the constitutional validity of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A common judgment has already been passed in WP(C) No.10334 of 2014 and connected cases on 20.12.2014. The position stands answered in favour of the Revenue. As such, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in this case. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →