M/S. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPORATION LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (1),

WP(C)/19442/2014HC KeralaKLHC01065063201408 August 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment dated August 8, 2014, held that the writ petition filed by M/s. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was to pursue their appeal through the statutory appellate hierarchy. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a clear and adequate alternative remedy exists, as it would bypass the established legal procedures. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail themselves of the statutory remedies. No specific issues regarding the merits of the income tax assessment were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner had approached the High Court directly through this writ petition. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Trivandrum, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is also listed as a respondent. The amount in dispute is not mentioned. The judgment is dated August 8, 2014.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the given circumstances. The petitioner likely argued that there were grounds for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, possibly due to a lack of an effective alternative remedy or other exceptional circumstances. The respondent, the Income Tax Department, would have contended that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies available, such as filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and therefore, a writ petition was not maintainable. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that formed the basis of the assessment or appeal are not detailed in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

WP(C).No. 19442 of 2014

WP(C).NO. 11251 OF 2014

W.A. NO. 437 OF 2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/17TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 19442 of 2014 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M/S. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPORATION LTD., SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, P.B NO.2263, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY COMPANY SECRETARY, JOHN JOSEPH. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR, SRI.R.SREEJITH R.NAIR, SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI, SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL), SRI. SOUMYA PRAKASH. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1), TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS], TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs.

WP(C).No. 19442 of 2014 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.03.2014 FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.03.2014 FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2007-08. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2007-08. EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.04.2014 IN

WP(C).NO. 11251 OF 2014. EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2014 FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2014 IN

W.A. NO. 437 OF 2014. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C) No. 19442 of 2014 ====================== Dated this the 8th day of August, 2014 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved with the conditional order passed in first appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. By Ext.P8, a conditional order was passed directing payment of balance 50% of the demand, by instalments. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that, in fact, in the earlier round of litigation for two subsequent years, the very same issue arose and the same was unsuccessfully agitated before the first appellate authority and on filing an appeal before the Tribunal, a Division Bench of this Court had granted a conditional order directing payment of 10% of the demand. 2. In the years, which are the subject matter of the present Writ Petition also, when the petitioner approached this Court, while the appeals and stay applications were pending consideration before the first appellate authority,

W.P.(C) No. 19442 of 2014 2 this Court by Ext.P7 directed payment of 1/10th of the amount due, under the assessment orders for both the years. The petitioner has complied with the said order. 3. On going through Ext.P8 order of the first appellate authority, it is seen that the appellate authority was considerably influenced by the finding in first appeal of the subsequent years. The first appellate authority having taken a view in the matter, the present incumbent cannot deviate from such findings. It is a moot question as to whether departmental discipline should be brought into the functioning of quasi-judicial authorities. In any event, it is to be noticed that, the order passed by the predecessor is pending in appeal before the Tribunal and a Division Bench of this Court thought it fit that, the appeal can be proceeded with and concluded on payment of 10% of the amount demanded. 4. In such circumstance, the petitioner having complied with the condition imposed in Ext.P7, it is only

W.P.(C) No. 19442 of 2014 3 proper that the appeal be considered on merits and in the meanwhile, recovery proceedings kept in abeyance. If the petitioner has complied with the condition in Ext.P7, necessarily,the recovery proceedings shall not be proceeded with till the appeals are disposed of. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →