PARAGON BIOMEDICAL INDIAN PVT. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

WP(C)/12717/2014HC KeralaKLHC01058340201420 May 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, including the right to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court emphasized that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when efficacious alternative remedies are available, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as a violation of principles of natural justice or a patent lack of jurisdiction. No such exceptional circumstances were demonstrated by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedies.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Paragon Biomedical Indian Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemption). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the petitioner likely having approached the Income Tax authorities for some relief or clarification, leading to the impugned order. The respondents are various Income Tax authorities, including the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and Commissioner of Income Tax, all based in Thiruvananthapuram. The amount in dispute is not mentioned. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to maintain a writ petition against the order passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemption) without first exhausting the alternative remedies available under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that the writ petition was maintainable. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies. The judgment does not explicitly name the specific provision of the Income Tax Act that forms the basis of the dispute, but the context implies it relates to the assessment or exemption proceedings. The core question is about the availability and exhaustion of alternative remedies.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2014/30TH VAISAKHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 12717 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ PARAGON BIOMEDICAL INDIAN PVT. LTD., B-16, GAYATRI TECHNOPARK, TRIVANDRUM - 695 581 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.VINOD NARAYANAN. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN RESPONDENTS:-: -------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I(I), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME- TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 12717 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 21.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA (STPI). EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2014 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 23.04.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 23.04.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY DATED 23.04.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 08.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2013 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.16836/2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE dsn

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C.).No.12717 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MAY, 2014

JUDGMENT The petitioner is a 100% Export Oriented Unit(EOU) registered with the Software Technology Parks of India, an autonomous society constituted by the Union of India for grant of registration of units engaged in Software and IT Enabled Services. Section 10B of the Income-tax Act gives exemption for a period of 10 years for all 100% EOUs. For the assessment year 2011-12, the petitioner claimed exemption under Section 10B of the Act, which has been disallowed vide Exhibit P2 order, on the ground that registration granted to the petitioner as a 100% EOU is by the Software Technology Park India and not by the Board constituted under the Industries(Development and Regulation) Act, 1961. Against Exhibit P2 order, the petitioner has preferred Exhibit P3 appeal before the 3rd respondent along with Exhibit P4 stay petition. According to the petitioner, the said appeal and stay petition

W.P.(C).No.12717/14 -2- are still pending consideration before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has approached this court seeking various reliefs including a direction to the 3rd respondent to expeditiously dispose of Exhibit P3 appeal and Exhibit P4 stay petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income-tax Department. 3. Challenging Exhibit P2 order, the petitioner has filed Exhibit P3 statutory appeal, accompanied by Exhibit P4 stay petition, and the said appeal and stay petition are now pending consideration before the 3rd respondent, which is the appellate authority. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P4 stay petition filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

W.P.(C).No.12717/14 -3- Till such a decision is taken, coercive steps taken against the petitioner pursuant to Exhibit P6 notice shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and a certified copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE dsn

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →