M/S.SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/6931/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038521201801 March 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for challenging orders passed by the Income Tax authorities. The Court reasoned that the Income Tax Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for redressal of grievances, including appeals to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court observed that the petitioner had already approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Therefore, the High Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Shalom Charitable Ministries of India, represented by its Managing Trustee, K.T. Thomas, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Palakkad (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner is also aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kakkanad, Ernakulam (Respondent No. 2). The writ petition also impleads the Manager of Dhanalakshmi Bank, Parli Branch, Palakkad (Respondent No. 3). The assessment year(s) and the specific order or action under challenge, as well as the amount in dispute, are not explicitly stated in the provided text.

What were the issues?

The High Court of Kerala was to decide the following question: Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ petition before this Court challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax authorities. The petitioner's contentions are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but it is implied they are seeking relief through a writ petition. The revenue's contentions are also not explicitly detailed, but their position would be in defense of the orders passed by the Income Tax authorities. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, circulars, or precedents are mentioned as being relied upon by either party in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6931 of 2018 ------------------- PETITIONER(S) ------------

M/S SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA,

SHALOM RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, SHALOM NAGAR,

GOPALAPURAM ROAD, CHITTUR P.O, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, K.T. THOMAS.

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON

SMT.MEERA V.MENON

SMT.K.KRISHNA. RESPONDENT(S): ------------ 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

CIRCLE -I, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 3. THE MANAGER,

DHANALAKSHMI BANK, PARLI BRANCH, PALAKKAD-678 612.

R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC.

R3 BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. 01/03/2018.

WP(C).No. 6931 of 2018 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1- COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 27/03/2013. EXHIBIT P2- COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATGED 25/04/2013. EXHIBIT P3- COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/04/2013. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. 01/03/2018.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6931 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018

JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 application for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3

WPC 6931 /18 -:2:- application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 1/3 /True Copy/ PS to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →