K.M.NASSARUDDHIN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/8297/2015HC KeralaKLHC01054137201520 May 2016Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its judgment dated May 20, 2016, did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition by observing that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was pending. Therefore, the High Court found it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to pursue the available statutory remedy of appeal. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner or the revenue. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to pursue the pending appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and to consider the same expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K.M.Nassaruddhin, a partner in N.L. Properties and Developers, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ernakulam, and the Tax Recovery Officer (Non Corporate), Kochi. The petitioner is seeking relief against actions taken by these revenue authorities. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge, as well as the amount in dispute, are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated upon.

What were the issues?

The primary question before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief under its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner likely contended that the actions of the revenue authorities were arbitrary, illegal, or violated their rights, necessitating judicial intervention. The revenue authorities, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Tax Recovery Officer, would have argued that their actions were in accordance with the law and that the petitioner had alternative remedies available, such as appeals to higher tax authorities or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that formed the basis of the dispute are not mentioned in the provided text. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by either side are recorded.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA 1938 WP(C).No. 8297 of 2015 (J) --------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- K.M.NASSARUDDHIN PARTNER, N.L. PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS, PALLIKUNNEL VEETTIL, NETOOR.P.O., KOCHI-682034.

BY ADVS.SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS : ------------------ 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM.

THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, (NON CORPORATE), OFFICE OF THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, KOCHI-02, C.R. BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018.

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

SHRI. C.A. LATHEEF, CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ST. ANTHONY'S ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM.

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.LIJU V. STEPHEN R4 BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 8297 of 2015 (J) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 30-1-2007.

EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 31-12-2009 ON THE FIRM FOR THE A/Y 2007/08.

EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 31-12-2009 ON THE FIRM FOR THE A/Y 2008-09.

EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 12-1-2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 12-1-2015 ISSUED TO THE OTHER PARTNER/4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 12-1-2015 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT PROPOSING TO SELL 14.16 CENTS WITH 2-STOREY BUILDING.

EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22-1-2015 BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P8. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 4-2-2015 IN WPC NO. 3149/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.P9. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION DATED 23-2-2015.

EXT.P10. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY IN THE SAME RESURVEY NO. IN AMBALLOOR VILLAGE.

EXT.P11. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 9-3-2015 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J ----------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 8297 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2016 J U D G M E N T Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. Hence this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE sou. 20/5

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →