MOHAMMED RAFI SYED vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/30441/2014HC KeralaKLHC01076060201419 November 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON6 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, considered the writ petition filed by Mohammed Raffi Syed. The Court noted that the petitioner was challenging assessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department. The Court observed that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedies available to him under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Specifically, the Court pointed out that the petitioner could have approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to address his grievances regarding the assessment. Therefore, the Court held that a writ petition was not the appropriate remedy at this stage. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment proceedings themselves but rather on the maintainability of the writ petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedies.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohammed Raffi Syed, a resident Indian residing in Sharjah, UAE, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges the actions of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv), Central Circle-2, Thiruvananthapuram, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is also challenging the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ernakulam, and the Assistant Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Thiruvananthapuram. The specific order or action under challenge is not detailed in the provided text, but it pertains to assessment proceedings. The procedural history indicates this is an admission stage hearing for the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated due to alleged procedural irregularities and lack of proper jurisdiction, requiring intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction? (Question of law and fact, concerning the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner likely argues that the assessment proceedings are flawed and that the authorities have acted beyond their powers or in contravention of established procedures. Specific grounds for this argument are not detailed in the provided text. The petitioner seeks to halt or correct these proceedings through the writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Assistant Director and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, would likely contend that the assessment proceedings are valid and that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedies available under the Income Tax Act, such as filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. They would argue that a writ petition is not maintainable at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 30441 of 2014

WP(C).NO. 10019/2010

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.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/28TH KARTHIKA, 1936 WP(C).No. 30441 of 2014 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- MOHAMMED RAFFI SYED, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O H. SYED, RAJI MANZIL, KADAKAL, MANCODE VILLAGE, MATHIRA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PIN-691 536, NOW RSIDENT INDIAN, HAVING THE ADDRESS P.O BOX 24185, SHARJAH U.A.E, NO. AWJPM 2926L/CC-2/TVM 2009-10. BY ADVS.SMT.C.G.BINDU, SMT.C.G.AJITHA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ANNEX BUILDING (4TH FLOOR), KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs.

WP(C).No. 30441 of 2014 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-12-2009. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01-02-2010. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16-02-2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER DATED 25-02-2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 220(6) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 15-03-2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21-03-2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-03-2010 IN WP(C).NO. 10019/2010. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06-04-2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT OF RS. 26,58,417/0 (RUPEES TWENTY SIX LAKHS FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN ONLY), DATED 19-04-2010. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-03-2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2011 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-09-2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-03-2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13-05-2014 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ........2/-

WP(C).No. 30441 of 2014 (E) EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXHIBIT P15 SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23-05-2014. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11-08-2014. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.30441 OF 2014 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th November, 2014 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, to call for all the records leading to Exhibits P13, P15 and P17 and quash Exhibits P13, P15 and P17 issued by the respondents. b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to desist from proceeding with Exhibits P13, P15 and P17 and further direct to stop all coercive steps against the petitioner. c) to declare that the petitioner is not a defaulter in order to impose penalty under Section 271(1) © as he has paid the entire amount due as per the direction in Exhibit P7 judgment of this Hon'ble Court. d) to issue appropriate orders or directions to stay all the further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P13, P15 and P17 issued by the respondents till the disposal of this writ petition. e) to issue appropriate orders or directions to dispose of Exhibit P14 appeal pending before the 3rd respondent taking into

W.P.(C)No.30441 OF 2014 2 consideration of Exhibit P10 and P12. f) issue appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case. g) Award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.” 2. During the course of the proceedings, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire tax liability mulcted upon the shoulders of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 has already been satisfied and Ext.P12 'NLC' (No Liability Certificate) has been issued to the petitioner. Despite this, on a fine morning, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P13 passed by the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax with regard to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner already moved the appellate authority by filing Ext.P14. Grievance is with regard to the coercive proceedings by way of Exts.P15 and P17 , being taken in the meanwhile. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has already filed an I.A. for stay, though copy of the same is not produced along with the writ petition.

W.P.(C)No.30441 OF 2014 3 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents as well.

Considering the sequence of events and also the present stage of the proceedings, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits; more so when the matter is pending consideration before the appellate authority. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the appellate authority to consider and pass appropriate orders in the I.A. for stay, if any preferred by the petitioner, which shall be done at the earliest at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →