SHRI.RAJENDRA S/O SHANTILAL SHAH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/110356/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC02002080201909 August 2024Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, acknowledged the pendency of appeals filed by the petitioner concerning assessment orders for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18. Given this pendency, the Court did not delve into the merits of the claims regarding the refund or the recovery of tax demand based on the seized cash. Instead, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the appropriate authority to dispose of the pending appeals in accordance with the law. The Court set an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order for the disposal of these appeals. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of with this direction, and no specific finding was made on the issues raised concerning the PMGKY Scheme or the refund/recovery amounts.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. Rajendra S/o Shantilal Shah, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Nippani, to grant a refund of Rs. 6,11,220/- from monies held by the Commissioner of Income Tax, pursuant to a declaration under the PMGKY Scheme 2016. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents not to recover tax demand based on cash seized of Rs. 12,20,000/- during a search, asserting it was validly declared under the PMGKY Scheme. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that appeals questioning assessment orders for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 were pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Income Tax Officer to grant a refund of Rs. 6,11,220/- under the PMGKY Scheme 2016? (Question of law and fact, concerning the applicability and compliance with the PMGKY Scheme). 2. Whether the respondents should be directed not to recover tax demand based on cash seized of Rs. 12,20,000/-, as it was validly declared under the PMGKY Scheme 2016? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of the declaration and coverage under the PMGKY Scheme). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the cash seized was validly declared and covered under the PMGKY Scheme 2016, and all conditions of the Scheme and Act were fulfilled. The petitioner also submitted that appeals questioning assessment orders for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 were pending and requested the court to direct the expeditious disposal of these appeals. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents acknowledged the pendency of the appeals and submitted that an appropriate order may be passed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11348 WP No. 110356 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 110356 OF 2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SHRI. RAJENDRA S/O SHANTILAL SHAH, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 39, ASHOK NAGAR, NIPPANI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGRAM.S.KULKARNI., AND SRI. PRAMOD.Y.VAIDYA., ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1 NIPPANI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHIMIJIBHAI COMPLEX, OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATE)

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

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11348 WP No. 110356 of 2019

ORAL ORDER Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.Thirumalesh., learned counsel for the respondents have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs. i) Issue a writ of mandamus to the first respondent – the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Nippani to grant the refund of Rs.6,11,220/-, out of monies lying with the Commissioner of Income Tax, pursuant to a valid declaration under PMGKY Scheme 2016. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to make any recovery of tax demand based on cash seized of Rs.12,20,000/- during search as the same is validly declared and covered under PMGKY Scheme 2016 and all the conditions of the Scheme and Act are fulfilled. 3. Learned counsel Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., on instruction submits that the petitioner filed appeals questioning the assessment orders pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 and are pending as of today. Counsel, therefore,

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11348 WP No. 110356 of 2019

submits that the Writ Petition may be disposed of directing the respondents to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. Counsel Sri.M.Thirumalesh., acknowledges the pendency of the appeals. He submits that an appropriate order may be passed. The oral submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties is placed on record. 4. Because of the pendency of the appeals before the appropriate authority, this Court deems it proper to direct the appropriate authority to dispose of the appeals in accordance with the law within the outer-limit of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is hereby directed to upload this order through his portal. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 43

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →