THAHA M.A. vs. THE INCOEM TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/22498/2013HC KeralaKLHC01065688201313 August 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN6 pages

AI SummaryThe provided text is an excerpt of a writ petition and does not contain the final judgment or order. Therefore, the result cannot be determined.

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt of a writ petition and does not contain the High Court's decision or reasoning. Therefore, what the Tribunal (in this case, the High Court) decided, the finding on any issue, the reasoning, or the ratio decidendi cannot be determined from this text. Consequently, there are no operative directions or mention of any issue left undecided. The excerpt ends before the judgment's substantive content is presented.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Thaha M.A., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order or action by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Kochi. The specific assessment year(s) and the nature of the order or action are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the case was heard on August 13, 2014, and a judgment was delivered on the same day. The respondents include the Income Tax Officer, the District Collector, Ernakulam, and the Secretary, Corporation of Cochin, Kochi, who was impleaded suo motu. The amount in dispute is not stated.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the Income Tax Officer's action or order, which is not precisely described, was legally sustainable. The petitioner, Mr. Thaha M.A., likely sought to challenge this action on grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of his rights. The respondents, including the Income Tax Officer, the District Collector, and the Corporation of Cochin, would have defended the action taken. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act or other relevant laws that form the basis of the challenge are not detailed in the provided text. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities, circulars, or precedents by either the petitioner or the revenue are recorded in the excerpt.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/22ND SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 22498 of 2013 (J) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- MR.THAHA M.A, HOUSE NO.13/1132 A, R.K.PILLAI ROAD, CHULLICKAL, KOCHI - 5. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH SMT.T.S.VIKEESHA SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS : ------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (5), KOCHI - 682 018. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. * ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED

SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI. * ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER DATED 12.09.2013

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, S.C

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd.

WP(C).No. 22498 of 2013 (J) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION U/S.143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX . EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL EVIDENCING DEDUCTION AT SOURCE AND REMITTANCE. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.03.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.04.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- EXHIBIT R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE E-FILE I.T.STATEMENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd.

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 22498 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 13th August, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT The petitioner was aggrieved with, Form 16A under the Income Tax Act and Rules not being uploaded by the 2nd respondent; with respect to the tax deduction at source made by the 2nd respondent on the amounts disbursed to the petitioner herein. Petitioner was a contractor who had been awarded certain works by the additional 3rd respondent. The work awarded was of 'waste disposal' and the same was subsequently taken over by the 2nd respondent. The disbursal of amounts as per the Award, was made by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent had also deducted tax at source; however, the same was not uploaded properly in the system of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner hence, was faced with

WP(C).22498/13 2 Ext.P1 intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. It was in such circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court with the above writ petition. In any event, while the matter was pending, the 2nd respondent had taken measures to see that the amounts were uploaded. But for an amount of Rs.39,292/- petitioner's grievance projected in the writ petition stands redressed. With respect to the balance amounts, it is submitted by the 2nd respondent that they are unable to retrieve Form 16A from the system which would enable the petitioner to claim adjustments. In such circumstances, looking at Instruction No.5 of 2013 dated 08.07.2013 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the CBDT has come forward to provide redressal in circumstances of system failure leading to adjustments not being properly carried out.

WP(C).22498/13 3 3. The petitioner hence, would be entitled to approach the Income Tax Department, the 1st respondent herein, for redressal of his grievance. However, the 2nd respondent will have to issue Form 16A generated manually, since it is stated that, it is impossible for retrieval from the system. In such circumstances, on an application being made by the petitioner showing the specific deductions made by the District Collector, the District Collector shall issue a Form 16A, issued manually, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application. Petitioner shall approach the 1st respondent with the so issued Form 16A and the 1st respondent shall consider the issue in the light of Instruction No.5 of 2013 dated 08.07.2013 expeditiously. For that purpose, Ext.P1 intimation and further proceedings thereon, shall remain stayed till the 1st respondent

WP(C).22498/13 4 considers the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →