THE MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/6172/2015HC KeralaKLHC01052012201526 February 2015Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, considered the maintainability of the writ petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the income tax dispute itself. Instead, the decision focused on whether the petitioner had exhausted or was precluded from utilizing the statutory remedies available to them. The Court's reasoning would likely revolve around the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly concerning the availability of alternative efficacious remedies. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, implying that the Court found the petitioner's recourse to writ jurisdiction to be inappropriate at this stage, and that the petitioner ought to pursue the remedies provided under the Income Tax Act. No specific issue regarding the income tax assessment was decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., represented by its Chief Editor & Managing Director, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The writ petition challenges an order or action, though the specific order and assessment year(s) are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not elaborated upon, beyond the fact that it has reached the stage of admission before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek intervention from the High Court under its writ jurisdiction at this stage of the proceedings. This question hinges on whether there are exceptional circumstances or a failure of natural justice that would warrant such intervention, as opposed to the petitioner pursuing the available appellate remedies. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, The Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., likely argues that the writ petition is maintainable due to specific grounds not fully detailed but implied to be compelling enough to bypass the normal appellate process. They would contend that the circumstances necessitate immediate High Court intervention. Revenue's Contention: The respondent revenue authorities, represented by the Standing Counsel, would likely argue that the writ petition is premature and that the petitioner has alternative remedies available through the statutory appellate mechanism. They would contend that the High Court's writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to circumvent the established procedures for tax disputes.

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 THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/7TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6172 of 2015 (V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD., K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EDITOR & MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI.MAMMEN MATHEW. BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS

RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/

WP(C).No. 6172 of 2015 (V) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME TOGETHER WITH SCHEDULE 2 TO THE COMPUTATION CLAIMING DEPRECIATION AND ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 31.12.2014 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.11.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.15.12.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P3 LETTER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.17.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.23.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ANNEXURES). EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DTD.25.7.2014 PASSED BY THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL, STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL DATED 29.1.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (WWITHOUT ANNEXURES). EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 9.2.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 9.2.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT U/S220(6) OF THE ACT FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.16.2.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C) No.6172 of 2015 - V ====================== Dated this the 26th day of February, 2015 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 is the assessment order passed against the petitioner for the year 2012-13. Against which, petitioner filed Ext.P8 appeal, which is accompanied by Exts.P9 and P10 stay petitions before the 2nd respondent. Appeal and stay petitions are pending before the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, coercive proceedings have been initiated. It is in this context, the writ petition has been filed. 2. In the above circumstances, it is directed that the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent herein, shall dispose of Exts.P9 and P10 stay applications within a period of two months from today and the coercive proceedings be stayed until such orders are passed, which order shall determine the matter thereafter. Writ petition disposed of. Sd/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →