SRI HANAMESH BASAPATTANA S/O GANGAPPA BASAPATTANA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/103837/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC02001757202212 August 2024Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Writ Petition should be dismissed for two primary reasons: non-prosecution and non-compliance with office objections. The Court observed that despite being granted sufficient opportunities over a period of nearly two years since its filing in 2022, the petitioner had failed to comply with the office objections raised by the Registry. Furthermore, on the day the matter was called for orders, there was no representation from the petitioner, either in person or through video conferencing, indicating a lack of diligence in prosecuting the petition. The Court concluded that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the case. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed on these grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. Hamesh Basapattana, filed a Writ Petition (WP No. 103837 of 2022) before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the National Faceless Assessment Center. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter was listed for orders on August 12, 2024. The court noted that the petitioner had been granted time on previous occasions, specifically on September 28, 2022, and June 3, 2024, to comply with office objections. Despite these opportunities, the objections remained unrectified. The petition, filed in 2022, had been pending for approximately two years. On the day of the hearing, there was no representation from the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Writ Petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution, considering the absence of representation from the petitioner and the lack of diligent prosecution. 2. Whether the Writ Petition should be dismissed for non-compliance with office objections, despite multiple opportunities granted by the Court. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (petitioner) as the petitioner was absent and unrepresented. The petition was filed seeking certain reliefs, but the specific grounds or arguments are not detailed in the provided text. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue (respondents). The revenue's role in this specific order pertains to the assessment proceedings that led to the writ petition, but their arguments before the High Court on the writ petition itself are not detailed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11411 WP No. 103837 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 103837 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI. HANAMESH BASAPATTANA S/O GANGAPPA BASAPATTANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT: SINGANAL, TALUK: GANGVATHI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583 227. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRAKASH.R.BADIGER., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

2.

THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI. …RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11411 WP No. 103837 of 2022

ORAL ORDER

When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either personally or through video conferencing.

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 28.09.2022, on that day, two weeks time was granted to do the needful. Again, the petition was listed on 03.06.2024, on that day, two weeks time was granted to rectify the objections raised by the Registry. Despite granting time, office objections were not complied with.

The petition is listed today for orders regarding non- compliance of office objections. A perusal of the entire order sheet reveals that despite giving sufficient opportunities, the office objections are not complied with. Furthermore, the petition is of the year 2022. Now we are in the month of August 2024. The petition is pending for almost two years. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11411 WP No. 103837 of 2022

dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

MRP, TKN LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →