KAMADHENU VIVID UDHESHAGALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/146953/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC02002333202013 August 2024Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition for non-prosecution and non-compliance with office objections. The Court noted that there was no representation for the petitioner on the day the matter was called. It further observed that despite being granted sufficient opportunities to do the needful and rectify office objections on multiple dates over a period of approximately four years, the petitioner had failed to comply. The Court concluded that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the petition. Therefore, the petition was dismissed on these grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamadhenu Vivid Udhheshagala Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha, filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petition was filed in 2020 and was listed for orders on August 13, 2024. The respondents include the Income Tax Officer, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of Karnataka (Co-operation Department), and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The matter has been pending for approximately four years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Writ Petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution, considering the absence of representation for the petitioner on the hearing date. 2. Whether the Writ Petition should be dismissed for non-compliance with office objections, despite multiple opportunities granted by the Court. Assessee's Contentions: No contentions were recorded as the petitioner's advocate was absent and there was no representation for the petitioner. The judgment notes that the petitioner failed to comply with office objections despite being granted time on several occasions, including September 14, 2022, October 29, 2022, and June 11, 2024. Revenue's Contentions: No contentions were recorded as the matter was being considered for dismissal due to non-prosecution and non-compliance with office objections.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11509 WP No. 146953 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 146953 OF 2020 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

KAMADHENU VIVID UDHESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH, SIDDESHWAR ROAD, ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, REP.BY ITS, PRESIDENT SRI. ISHWAR S/O. RAMU MUJAGONI, AGED 45 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R. KAMBIYAVAR., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GOKAK, DR. GHODIGERI’S HOSPITAL BUILDING, BELAGAVI ROAD, GOKAK-591 307.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KMIJI BAI BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI-590 001.

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK-110 001. NEW DELHI-110 001, REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.

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

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11509 WP No. 146953 of 2020

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO.610, 3RD GATE, 6TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR. …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:

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 14.09.2022, on that day, two weeks time was granted to do the needful. Again, the petition was listed on 29.10.2022, on that day, two weeks time was granted to comply with the office objections. Once again, the petition was listed on 11.06.2024, on that day, two weeks time was granted

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11509 WP No. 146953 of 2020

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 2020. Now we are in the month of August 2024. The petition is pending for almost four 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 dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →