SRI N GUNASEKAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/4783/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01010912202309 January 2024Author: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the respondents to address the petitioner's grievances and consider his representation dated December 30, 2022, at Annexure-H. The respondents were ordered to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the representation itself but focused on ensuring its timely consideration. The issue regarding the writ of prohibition concerning Global Finsol Private Limited's refund was implicitly addressed by directing the consideration of the representation, which presumably contains the grounds for such a prohibition. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri N Gunasekar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the inaction of the respondents, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner's grievance was that his representation dated December 30, 2022, submitted to the respondents, had not been considered, and no order had been passed on it. The petitioner sought directions for the respondent authority to deliver information sought in his representation and to refrain from proceeding with transactions related to an income tax refund due to Global Finsol Private Limited. The respondents' counsel submitted that they would consider and pass a necessary order on the representation if given reasonable time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus or direction to the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's representation dated December 30, 2022, and deliver the information sought therein? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of prohibition to the concerned authority to prevent further steps concerning transactions related to the Income Tax refund of Global Finsol Private Limited? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his representation dated December 30, 2022, had not been considered by the respondents, and no order had been passed thereon, necessitating judicial intervention. Revenue's Contention: The respondents' counsel submitted that they would consider and pass a necessary order on the petitioner's representation if granted reasonable time.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4783 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI N GUNASEKAR AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, NO.196-C, C SHYMALA NIVAS ANNA NAGAR, KANNANKURICHI SALEM, TAMILNADU 636 008.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRI K. MALLAHA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 051.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE -125 WARD 3(1) (3), BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY NO.2 TO TAKE SUCH NECESSARY MEASURES/STEPS IN ACCORDANCE TO DELIVER THE INFORMATION SOUGHT HEREWITH ENCLOSED AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H DTD 30.12.2022 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ORDER

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

a. Issue writ of mandamus or writ of direction to the respondent authority no.2 to take such necessary measures / steps in accordance to deliver the information sought, herewith enclosed and produced as Annexure – H dated 30.12.2022;

b. Issue writ of prohibition to the concerned authority, not to proceed or take further steps with respect to the transactions related to the Income tax refund amount due to the Global Finsol Private Limited;

c. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his representation dated 30.12.2022 at Annexure – H submitted to the respondents have not been considered so far by the respondents nor any order has been passed on the same. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if reasonable time is given, the respondents would consider and pass necessary order on the said representation. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and rival submissions, the respondents are hereby directed to address the grievances of the petitioner and consider his representation dated 30.12.2022 at Annexure – H and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →