SR EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

WP(C)/9381/2018HC KeralaKLHC01040971201804 April 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated April 4, 2018, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner, SR Educational Charitable Trust, an opportunity of being heard. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case but focused on the procedural fairness. The reasoning appears to be that the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the principle established is that an authority must provide a fair hearing before passing an order that affects an assessee. The operative direction is for a fresh adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS). No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, SR Educational Charitable Trust, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS). The Trust is represented by its Chairman. The second respondent is the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India. The writ petition was filed seeking appropriate directions. The specific nature of the order under challenge and the assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) is legally sustainable. (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner, SR Educational Charitable Trust, has approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, implying that they believe the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) is arbitrary, illegal, or violates their fundamental rights, thus warranting judicial intervention. Specific arguments or reliance on authorities are not recorded in the provided text. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), is represented by counsel. However, the specific arguments or legal basis for the order being challenged are not detailed in the provided text. The State Bank of India is also a respondent, but their role or contentions are not specified.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 9381 of 2018

W.P(C) NO.8771/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 9381 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) SR EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST DIVYAPRABHA, MARAPPALAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. R SHAJI. BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.E.S.SANDHYA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 003. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, SME BRANCH, ANDOOR BUILDING, GENERAL HOSPITAL: ROAD, VANCHIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 035. R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR, SC, SBI R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 9381 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2018 IN W.P(C) NO.8771/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 16.03.2018 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE NOTICE U/SEC. 226(3) OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, NO. DCIT(TDS)/TVMDS03208F/TVM/ATTACHMENT 2017-18 DATED 12.03.2018. // true copy // Sd/- PS TO JUDGE Kvs/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.9381 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of April, 2018 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 2. In the light of Ext.P1 judgment, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to defer further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 until Ext.P2 series applications for rectification referred to in Ext.P1 judgment are considered and disposed of. It is also clarified that the petitioner will be free to operate the bank account referred to in Ext.P2 till such time. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- // true copy //

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →