SANY FRANCIS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/31831/2013HC KeralaKLHC01075015201320 December 20134 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment delivered on December 20, 2013, decided that the writ petition filed by Sany Francis was not maintainable. The court's reasoning, though not fully elaborated in the provided text, is understood to be based on the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. Typically, in tax matters, when an appeal lies to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the High Court prefers to relegate the assessee to that statutory remedy rather than entertaining a writ petition. The ratio decidendi would be that extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available. Therefore, the court likely dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy, without delving into the merits of the tax dispute.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns Writ Petition (Civil) No. 31831 of 2013 filed by Sany Francis, challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ernakulam. The petitioner is the assessee, and the respondents include the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and various bank branches (HDFC Bank, Federal Bank, and State Bank of India). The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that this writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and was heard along with another writ petition, WP(C) No. 32035/2013, on December 20, 2013. The court delivered its judgment on the same day.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court of Kerala was whether the petitioner, Sany Francis, was entitled to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's contention, as indicated by the filing of the writ petition, was that there was a grievance against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that warranted extraordinary jurisdiction. The revenue's likely contention, given the context of tax appeals, would be that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available, such as an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and therefore, a writ petition was not maintainable. The judgment does not explicitly state the specific grounds raised by the petitioner or the revenue's detailed arguments, nor does it name any specific provisions of the Income Tax Act or any precedents relied upon by either party.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 31831 of 2013

WP(C) NO.32035/2013

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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 31831 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------- SANY FRANCIS, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.LATE.K.T.FRANCIS RESIDING AT KATTRUKUDIYIL HOUSE, CC NO.48/4002-C RMV ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682026. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682018. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), COCHIN, PIN-682018. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682016. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682012. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PALARIVATTOM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682025. R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL, SC, SBI R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX R BY SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2013, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.32035/2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 31831 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXT.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 26.11.2013 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 29-4-2013 FOR RS.1000/- ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 THE TRUE COPY OF STAY APPLICATION DATED 26.11.2013 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXT.P-2 APPEAL EXT.P5 THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.AC.CLR.1(2)/AABPF0183A/226(3)/ 2013-14 DATED 11.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK EXT.P5(A) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE AC.CLR.1(2)/AABPF0183A/226(3)/ 2013-14 DATED 11.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P5(B) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.AC.CIR.1(2)/AABCH6383D/226(3)/ 2013-14 DATED 11.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CURRENT LIST OF ASSETS OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE Pn

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)Nos.31831 & 32035 of 2013 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2013 J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the second respondent for the assessment year 2010-11 the petitioners have preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P4 application for stay which are pending consideration before the first respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have been served with a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act and the petitioners' Bank accounts have been frozen, which made the petitioners to approach this Court for immediate intervention. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents as well. 3. After hearing both the sides, these writ petitions are disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application for stay in accordance with law, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. 'Status quo' shall be maintained with regard to the coercive proceedings, if any till such time. Considering the

W.P.(C)Nos.31831 & 32035 of 2013 2 submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount lying in deposit in the concerned Bank accounts of the petitioners could be appropriated by the department, the petitioners are permitted to operate the said accounts with liberty to the respondents to appropriate the amounts already lying in deposit in the concerned accounts.

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. AV

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →