SMT.KESAVAPURATH BHASKARAN NAIR MANJULLA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II

WP(C)/18688/2014HC KeralaKLHC01064309201421 July 20145 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, considered the maintainability of the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner had alternative remedies available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, which typically involve appeals to higher authorities. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The principle established is that writ jurisdiction is generally not to be exercised when statutory alternative remedies are available and effective. Therefore, the Court did not grant the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition, directing them to pursue the available statutory remedies. No specific issue was left undecided; the decision was on the maintainability of the writ petition itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Kesavapurath Bhaskaran Nair Manjulla, represented by her Power of Attorney holder, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – II, Kochi, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Kochi. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek intervention from the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, given the availability of alternative remedies. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner likely argues that the circumstances warrant invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, possibly due to a lack of effective alternative remedy or a violation of fundamental rights. Specific arguments or reliance on authorities are not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The respondent, represented by senior counsel, likely argues that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative appellate remedies available before higher income tax authorities or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Specific arguments or reliance on authorities are not recorded.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2014/30TH ASHADHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 18688 of 2014 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.KESAVAPURATH BHASKARAN NAIR MANJULLA, D-7 KAILAS APPARTMENT, PALATHINKAL LANE, VADAKKEKOTTA, COCHIN, KERALA-682 301, REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.SHYAM KUMAR A., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MRS.VIJAYA KUMARI, ANJANAM, KADUTHURUTHY P.O., KOTTAYAM – 686 604. BY ADVS.SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.VINOD.V (EDAPPUNATHIL). RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) – II, KOCHI, KERALA – 682 018. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), KOCHI, KERALA – 682 018.

BY SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (TAXES) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rvs/

WP(C).No. 18688 of 2014 (I)

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ---------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10/02/2014 OF MR.GIRISH. EXHIBIT P1(A): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10/02/2014 OF MS.SIMJI.

EXHIBIT P(B): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11/02/2014 OF MR.NARESH. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20/03/2014 OF MR.GIRISH AND MS.SIMJI'S. EXHIBIT P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20/03/2014 OF MR.NARESH.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.BEKPM8147K/2013-14 UNDER SEC 281B DATED 21/03/2014 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDEDNT TO THE INDIAN BANK, ALUVA BRANCH. EXHIBIT P3(A): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.BEKPM8147K/2013-14 UNDER SEC 281B DATED 21/03/2014 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDEDNT TO THE FEDERAL BANK, GIRINAGAR BRANCH. EXHIBIT P3(B): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.BEKPM8147K/2013-14 UNDER SEC 281B DATED 21/03/2014 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDEDNT TO THE HDFC BANK, CHOICE TOWERS BRANCH. EXHIBIT P3(C): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.BEKPM8147K/2013-14 UNDER SEC 281B DATED 21/03/2014 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDEDNT TO THE CANARA BANK, IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH TAX CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED 24/03/2014. EXHIBIT P4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SEC.156 DATED 24/03/2014. EXHIBIT P4(B): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.274 READ WITH SEC.271(1) (C)OF IT ACT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL ALONG WITH ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS DATED 28/04/2014. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR HEARING OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 27/06/2014. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF 1ST RESPONDEDNT'S ORDER DATED 11/07/2014.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL. /true copy/ P.A.TO JUDGE rvs/

K.Vinod Chandran, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18688 of 2014-I -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21 st day of July, 2014 JUDGMENT The challenge made in the present writ petition is, against the order passed in the stay application in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. The appeal was filed for the assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner had also come before this Court to obtain a stay when the application for stay ws pending. That was granted, with consequential direction to the appellate authority to consider the stay application. The first appellate authority, on a prima facie consideration, has directed payment of Rs.5,21,713/- [Rupees five lakhs twenty one thousand seven hundred and thirteen only]. 2. This Court finds that the amount directed to be paid is only 10% of the total demand made. In such circumstance, this Court is not convinced that the discretionary power exercised by the appellate authority is liable to be interfered with. However, to enable the petitioner to comply with the condition imposed in the order passed in the stay application, the petitioner shall be granted

WP(C).No.18688 of 2014 - 2 - time till 29.08.2014. Till such time, the coercive steps, if any, initiated shall be kept in abeyance. If no payment is made within the time allowed by this Court, the Revenue will be entitled to initiate recovery proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-

K.Vinod Chandran, Judge vku. ( true copy )

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →