Shaik Karimunnisa, vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,

WP/23884/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01047423202515 September 2025Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN7 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Tax Recovery Officer on 22.09.2025 at 10:30 AM. The Court noted that the impugned notice in Form I.T.C.P.No.1 dated 21.04.2025 now refers to the Tax Recovery Certificate (TRC) number and Document Identification Number (DIN), addressing a deficiency in a previous notice that had been quashed. The revenue also pointed out that demands relating to different assessment years were pending against the petitioner. The Court implicitly accepted that the petitioner's grievances could be addressed by the Tax Recovery Officer. The concerned authority was directed to proceed in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was resolved by directing the petitioner to appear before the assessing authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shaik Karimunnisa, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice (Form I.T.C.P.No.1 dated 21.04.2025) for Rs. 1,73,28,419/- issued by the Tax Recovery Officer-1. The petitioner contended that the demand was made without a certificate of demand, without providing relevant documents, and that her bank accounts were frozen without due process. She argued this violated principles of natural justice and her constitutional rights. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.No.35753 of 2024) which was disposed of on 10.01.2025 because the demand notice then lacked a certificate number. The current notice, however, refers to a Tax Recovery Certificate (TRC) number and Document Identification Number (DIN). The revenue indicated that demands for multiple assessment years were pending against the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand notice in Form I.T.C.P.No.1 dated 21.04.2025, issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, is a valid demand notice as required by the Second Schedule to the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 117J of the Income Tax Rules, 1961, particularly concerning the inclusion of relevant details like certificate number and prescribed format. Assessee's Contention: The initial demand notice lacked essential details and was therefore invalid. While the current notice includes a TRC number and DIN, the petitioner still sought clarity on various proceedings and alleged procedural irregularities in bank account freezing. Revenue's Contention: The current demand notice (Form I.T.C.P.No.1 dated 21.04.2025) now includes the Tax Recovery Certificate (TRC) number and Document Identification Number (DIN) as required by the Second Schedule to the Act. The petitioner can raise her queries before the Tax Recovery Officer upon appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Second Schedule, Rule 117J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IVONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEX/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 23884 OF 202s [ 3488 ] ...PETITIONER 1Oth Floor Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Betwee n: AND Slraik Karimunnisa, W/o Basheer, Aged about.47 years, Occ.Private, R/o.H.No.8-2-3031182/N4354, Plot.No.374,Jubilee Hills, Road.No.1, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. 1. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, AP and TS, CBlock lT Towers, 1023, AC Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. Tax Recovery Officer-1 , Oio PCIT-1 , Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 6(1), Telangana- 4. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 14( l ). Telangana. .,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, direction order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [Vandamus declaring the action of Respondent.No.2 rn demanding the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1 ,73,28,419/-(Rupees one crore seventy three lakhs twenty eight thousand four hundred and nineteen rupees only) vide impugned notice of demand in form l.T.C.P.No.1 on dl.21lO4l2O25 without drawing certificate of demand, without providing the relevant documents pertaining to the demand amount inspite of Petitioner submitting representation to Re-spondent. No.2 on dt.10/0712025 and further freezing the bank accounts of the Petitioner without following due process of law contemplated under pro-visions of Second Schedule of lncome-Tax Act 1961 as well as lncome Tax (Cerlificate Proceedings)Rules, 1962 and provisions pertaining to recovery proceedings IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT

contemplated under lncome-Tax Act 1961 as illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and in violation of Petitioners right guaranteed under Art 1 4,19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the impugned notice of demand in form l-T.C-P.No.1 dt.21104/2025 issued by Respondent.No.2 and unfreeze the bank accounts of the Petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned notice of demand in form l.T.C.P.No.1 dt.2110412025 issued by Respondent. No.2 pending disposal of this present Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 202!i Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to unfreeze the bank accounts of the Petitioner pending disposal of this present Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SIRIPURAM KESHAVA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (sENroR sc rNcoME TAx) The Court made the following: ORDER

'I I{E I tON'lJ I-Il ,IIIE CHIEF' TI IS.TICE SRI APARESH KI.JMAR SINGI{ AND TI{E HON'BLE SRI IUSTI CE G.M.MOHIUDDIN Writ Pctition No.238U.1 of 2025 rdcr llcarcl NIr. Sir:ipuram I{csl'rava, Iearned c()Lrnscl tor the l)c t1 ( )rlcr llnd NIs. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learncd Senior Stanclins (.ounscl tbr Incomc Tar Department rppcaring tirr tlier rcspondcnts 2. ( )n 1-1.08.2025, lcarned Senior Standing Counscl lor thc Inconrt l ax [)cpartrncnt was askcd to scck instructiorls on tl]c c1ucn, rai.crl lrv thc petitioner, whcther liorm No.l.'f .C.P. I, issuccl on 21.0+.2()25, contains tl'rc relevant dctails as lt rc rccluilctl of a propcr- noticc of dcmand to the dcfaulter in telns oIRr-rlc ] oiScconcl Schccluie to the lncomc'Iax Act, 1961 (frrr short 'thc r\ct'), and as rcquired to be senr in rhe prcscribecl l:orrr.r No.57 undcr Rule 117]] of the lncomc Tax Rulcs. 1961 ([or short 'thc ltulcs').

) 3. Todar,, u,hcn tlrc matter has been takcn up, lcarne d Scnior Standing Counscl ftrr lncclmc 1'ar l)eparnncnt has producecl lrcfcrrc us, Fornr No.I.T.C.P.I dated 2(t.10.2022, raiscd upon the petitioncr for thc assessmcnt year 2007-08, ..r,hich rvas clunsl.rccl lrv this (l;r-rrt carlier in \\'.P.No.35753 ot 2024, tidc ordcr clarccl l-.()1.1015. on the ground tl-rat it cird not mcntion thc ccrtif-icatc nunrbcr. 'I'hc present Forrrr No.I.'f.C.l).1. r.urlicc oi clcnr:rnd to the clclaulter, issued ot 21 .04.2()2--r, in facr, re'fcrs to thc -fax llecoven, Certiftcate (fRC) numbcr as also thc Document klentification Nurnbcr (l)IN) in tcnns of Rulc f oFScconcl Scl-redule to thc Act. It is also pointc<l otrt that rhc Inconrc'l'ax l)epartmont has found that clenrands r:clating to di[[crt'r-rt asscssment ycars are still pending against tl'rc pcritioncr. 'fhe impugned notice, thcre[rrre, crrntatns clcmancls rclating t() asscssment r.cars 20()8- 09,2016-11,2()09-10, l0l-'18 ancl 2015-l(r. Petitioner, in the carlier occasi( )n, \\'irs asliccl to al)l)car on a pardcul:rr date as she has bccr-r evaclir-rq corlpliance <lr rcccipt of notices ror rcco\-cr'\'

-) to appcar bctorc thc office of the Tax Rccovery ()fficcr, I. I'.'l'ou,e ls. .\.(-.G uards, [-lr.clcrabad, on any particular ciate. It is subnrittcd that anr query, rvhich the peritioner has repcatedll. becn tn ing to raisc. can bc raised be fore the Tax Rccovefl, ()fficcr on lter xl)l)carancc, if nccessafi, and rccluired in larv. +. J .carne ci counsci tor thc pcririoncr has uicd to e\plaln thc reason tbr not anncxing Form No.I.T.C.P.i dated 26.10.2022, rvhich t'as earlicr cprashecl bt' this Courr. Howcver, he submits that thcrc \\ias no dcliberate intcntion to suppress ant' matcrial facrs ol clocurrcnts horr this Court. FIe submits that thc peutioncr i*s rc:rtlv and rvilling to appear bcfore the 'fax ltccoten' Otflccr in respect o[ thc notice of dcmand issucd in Irorm No.I.'l .C.P. 1 darccl 21.01.2025 and seek tirrtl.rcr clarification in rcspcct o[ ccrtain proceedings rcferred to in his rcprescntation clatcci 1 0.07.2025. oi thc tlcrriand. I his C-ourt mal', thcrcfore, direcr the pctitioner

- J To, 5. ln thar r.icrv of the mattcr. thc instant \\l it Petition is disposed of. .l'hc petitione r shitll appcar be fore the 'I'ax Rcc<;ven' Ot[rccr oa 22.()9.2025 at 10:30 a.rn 6. Needless to say, the conccrtrccl authotiq' rvould p1,r."",1 in thc matter in accordance rvith larr, As a sc qncl, tnisccllancor-rs l)criri()11s. pcnclinu. if ant', startcl clostd. . JAWAHAR REDDY 5 TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, AP and TS, 10 ' Floor, C Block lT Towers, 1023, AC Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2. Tax Recovery Officer- 1, O/o PCIT-'l , Hyderabad. 3. The Assistanl Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad, Telangana. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 14(1), Hyderabad, Telangana. 5. One CC to SRl. SIRIPURAIM KESHAVA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to t\/s BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (SENIOR SC INCOME TAX) loPUCl 7. Two CD Copies BIV IVIVT s

HIGH COURT DATED:1 510912025 .l iiE S i4 a .:- 3l][[Im .Sr,1;6ui_C ORDER WP.No.23884 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C;OSTS a. v ../,. z'j )\,+\ t:\ \

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →