K.RAVINDRAKUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/29921/2007HC KeralaKLHC01068590200709 June 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN7 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court found that the petitioner had a clear and efficacious alternative remedy available under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The existence of statutory appellate remedies, such as appeals to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), was considered sufficient to address the petitioner's grievances. The Court reasoned that these appellate forums are equipped to deal with all contentions, including those relating to the legality and procedural correctness of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedies. No specific issue regarding the assessment itself was decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K. Ravindrakumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the actions of the Income Tax Department. The petition was filed against the Union of India, the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Income Tax Officer, along with Punjab National Bank. The core of the dispute appears to stem from assessment proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court, indicating a grievance with the process or outcome of the tax assessment. The writ petition was filed in 2007, and the judgment was delivered on June 9, 2014.

What were the issues?

The primary question before the High Court was whether the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available, thereby precluding the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings were vitiated by illegality and procedural impropriety, warranting High Court intervention. The petitioner argued that the remedies available under the Income Tax Act, such as appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), were not efficacious in the present circumstances due to the alleged fundamental flaws in the assessment process. The revenue authorities, represented by their Standing Counsel, argued that the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy under the Income Tax Act and that the writ petition was therefore not maintainable. They contended that the High Court should not interfere with the assessment proceedings at this stage, as the petitioner could raise all his objections before the appellate authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text

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 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 29921 of 2007 (K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.RAVINDRAKUMAR, S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 'RAMA NIVAS', EDAYAR STREET, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS, SRI.P.S.APPU. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY - THE SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II, PALAKKAD. 5. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,A.S.G OF INDIA, R2 TO R4 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C,

R5 BY SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, S.C, SRI.P.K.SURESHKUMAR,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv.

W.P.(C).NO.29921/2007-K: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 25/06/2002. EXT.P.2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 14/08/2002. EXT.P.3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 08/11/2002. EXT.P.4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 26/02/2003. EXT.P.5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 16/07/2003. EXT.P.6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI DTD. 10/08/2004. EXT.P.7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 13/03/2007. EXT.P.8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE NEDUNGADI BANK TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 27/12/1995. EXT.P.9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE NEDUNGADI BANK AND THE THIRD RESPONDENT DTD. 29/12/1988. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv.

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 29921 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 9th June, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Petitioner is before this Court claiming a certificate of credit for the amounts allegedly withdrawn from his account and issued in the form of Demand Draft to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Ernakulam, which amount is not seen credited to the income tax dues of the petitioner. Admittedly, there was a search conducted on the premises of the petitioner at that point of time and the assessment for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 completed. Being a search case, the proceedings were centralised and the 3rd respondent was conferred with the authority to complete the assessment. 2. The assessment pursuant to the search was completed and going by the records produced

WP(C).29921/07 2 before this Court, an amount of Rs.94,190/- was due and payable by the petitioner. The recovery of the amounts seems to have been proceeded with by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Ernakulam that too by the issuance of garnishee order to the petitioner's bankers being the 5th respondent herein. Incidentally, at that point of time, petitioner's bankers were the Nedungadi Bank Ltd, a scheduled bank which was later taken over by the 5th respondent herein. The demand draft for the said amount was drawn up by the Bankers and forwarded to the 3rd respondent herein. So much is evident from Exts.P8 and P9 being respectively the communications issued to the petitioner evidencing the same as also the copy of the covering letter by which the demand draft was forwarded to the 3rd respondent. Hence, the amount was withdrawn from the petitioner's account.

WP(C).29921/07 3 3. The petitioner's contentions are further supported by Ext.P1, wherein the Assessing Officer of the petitioner, being the 4th respondent, has written to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax regarding the verification of the income tax records having revealed, an amount of Rs.94,190/- having been recovered through the assessee's bankers. The Assessing Officer by Ext.P1 requested the 3rd respondent to intimate the details of the collection of the above sum to wipe off the arrear pending in the above case. Petitioner is aggrieved insofar as the dues as against the tax determined on the search conducted and assessment completed for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85, is still pending as dues before the petitioner's Assessing Officer. 4. The learned Standing Counsel, Government of India (Taxes) on the basis of the counter affidavit would contend that the respondents are

WP(C).29921/07 4 unable to wipe off the arrears for the collection having not materialized. The 5th respondent Bank however would contend that having taken over the Nedungadi Bank Ltd., in the year 2003, the branch which had issued the Demand Draft has been closed down and the records of the earlier years pertaining to 1988 is also said to be unavailable. Definitely, none can dispute that an amount of Rs.94,190/- was debited from the account of the petitioner pursuant to an attachment made by the Income Tax authorities. A Demand Draft was also issued by the Bankers of the petitioner for the said amount to the 3rd respondent. The receipt of the Demand Draft by the Department is also revealed from the records, since, the Assessing Officer himself, after verification, finds the receipt of the same. What is in a flux is the collection of the said Demand Draft which is the duty of the Department and not of the Bank or of the petitioner.

WP(C).29921/07 5 5. In such circumstances, it is declared that the petitioner's dues, against which attachment was made as per letter No.R 745 dated 10.11.1988 and against which a Demand Draft dated 29.12.1988 was issued by the Bankers of the petitioner for Rs.94,190.10, shall be treated as settled and duly paid. No proceedings shall lie against the petitioner for recovery of the aforesaid amount. Any further amount due with respect to any other years or any other assessment is not covered by the directions issued herein. The writ petition stands allowed with the above directions. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →