NOORUL ISLAM COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

WP(C)/4076/2014HC KeralaKLHC01049705201414 February 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, which dismissed the writ petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction, requires no interference. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in M/S. Ambica Industries v. Commissioner Of Central Excise and its own previous judgments in Aparna Balan and Another v. Union of India and Others, V. Viswanathan v. State of Kerala, and WA No.1707 of 2022. The principle established is that merely having a bank account within the State of Kerala does not grant the Kerala High Court territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging orders passed by an assessing authority situated in Tamil Nadu, especially when those orders relate to the assessee's business activities in Tamil Nadu. The Writ Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Manaf Alihassan, filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to lift the attachment on his bank account held with the 4th respondent, ESAF Small Finance Bank Ltd., located within the Court's jurisdiction. The attachment was a consequence of actions taken by the assessing authority under the Income Tax Act, who was situated in Ooty, Tamil Nadu, falling under the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant then filed the present Writ Appeal against this dismissal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Kerala High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging an attachment order issued by an assessing authority located in Tamil Nadu, solely on the ground that the assessee maintains a bank account within Kerala. Assessee's contention: The appellant argued that since his bank account, which was attached, is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court, the Court should have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and provide relief. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the assessing authority is situated in Tamil Nadu, and the actions taken were in connection with the appellant's business activities in Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the Kerala High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The revenue relied on the Supreme Court decision in M/S. Ambica Industries v. Commissioner Of Central Excise and this Court's decisions in Aparna Balan and Another v. Union of India and Others, V. Viswanathan v. State of Kerala, and WA No.1707 of 2022.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WA NO. 454 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.02.2024 IN WP(C) NO.8064 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT: MANAF ALIHASSAN, AGED 44 YEARS RESIDING AT OLD D. NO. 13/175, KONNACHAL, ERUMADU, NILIGIRIS, TAMIL NADU, PIN – 643239 BY ADVS. M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED AKHIL PHILIP MANITHOTTIYIL DANIYA RASHEED PALLIYALIL RESPONDENTS: 1 THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSEMENT CENTRE MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001 2 THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, C-BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, S.P.M. CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 OOTTY - INCOME TAX OFFICE, CHRISTO BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, HOSPITAL ROAD, OOTTY, TAMIL NADU, PIN – 643101 4 THE BRANCH MANAGER ESAF SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD., NO. 19/507, D APV COMPLEX, CHULLIYODE, WAYNAD, KERALA, PIN - 679332 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC K.V.RASHMI,SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

:2: W.A No.454 of 2024 JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. This Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was the writ petitioner in WP(C).No.8064 of 2024 that was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 29.02.2024. The Writ Petition was preferred seeking a direction to lift the attachment on a bank account maintained by the petitioner with the 4th respondent who happens to be located within the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Single Judge found that the attachment of the bank account of the appellant in Wayanad was consequent to the exercise of power by the assessing authority under the Income Tax Act who was situated in Ooty, in Nilgiris District, which comes within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that the Writ Petition could not be maintained before this Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction. 2. We have heard Sri.M.P.Shameem Ahamed, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri. Jose Joseph the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department as also Smt. K.V. Rasmi, the learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent bank.

:3: W.A No.454 of 2024 On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge requires no interference. It is well settled through the decision of the Supreme Court in M/S. Ambica Industries v. Commissioner Of Central Excise [2007 (6) SCC 769] and the later decisions including the decision of this Court in Aparna Balan and Another v. Union of India and Others [2018 4 KHC 191] as also V. Viswanathan v. State of Kerala [2014 (4) KLT 798 (FB)] and the judgment dated 22.11.2022 of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1707 of 2022 (K S Jamestin v. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi and Another], that merely because the appellant has a bank account within the State of Kerala, he cannot maintain a Writ Petition challenging the orders passed by an assessing authority who is situated in Tamilnadu, more so when the orders in question are issued in connection with the business carried out by the appellant in Tamilnadu. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M JUDGE mns

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →