SMT. SHEELA PATHIKONDA VISHNUKUMAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU - 4

WP/107485/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC02020139202315 December 2023Author: ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in its current form. The Court observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Income Tax Act, 1961, to file a necessary application before the competent authorities for appropriate interim measures, such as a stay of the demand. The Court noted that the petitioner had paid a part of the tax demand (Rs. 22,19,837/-) during the pendency of the appeal. Considering this, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner filed an application for interim relief, it should be considered expeditiously. Until such an application was considered, the revenue authorities were directed not to take any coercive steps for recovery. This order was passed specifically considering the partial payment made by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Sheela Pathikonda Vishnukumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petition challenged an assessment order dated September 27, 2023, and a demand notice issued pursuant to it for Assessment Year 2013-14. The demand notice at Annexure-F indicated a tax demand of Rs. 1,59,54,313/-. The petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and sought a writ of mandamus for its expeditious disposal. The petitioner also sought a writ of prohibition to prevent coercive recovery steps based on the impugned order and demand. The respondents, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and other authorities, accepted notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1961, are available for seeking a stay of the assessment order and demand notice? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent recovery and a writ of mandamus for expeditious disposal of the appeal. The petitioner had paid Rs. 22,19,837/- as part payment of the demanded tax after filing the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable. They contended that if the petitioner intended to seek a stay of the assessment order or demand notice, a necessary application could be filed before the competent authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies provisions related to appeals and interim relief under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 107485 OF 2023 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHEELA PATHIKONDA VISHNUKUMAR, C/O. M/S. LAKSHMI PICTURE PALACE, HAMPI ROAD, HOSPET, BELLARY 583201. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI H. R. KAMBIYAVAR AND SMT. ROOPA ANAVEKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ROOM NO. 245A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001.

THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001, REP. BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION, NOT TO PROCEED FURTHER STEPS OR MEASURES OR ANY SUCH KIND OF INITIATIVES PERTAINING TO RECOVERY(S) PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED DEMAND MADE THEREOF VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2023.12.19 12:21:50 +0530

ANNEXURE-F, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REFRAIN FROM FURTHER COERCIVE STEPS, IN ANY MANNER OF WHATSOEVER IN NATURE, IN PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE, BOTH DATED 27-09- 2023 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR WRIT DIRECTION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, VIDE APPEAL BEARING NO. CIT (A) AT ANNEXURE-G.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Learned counsel Sri Y. V. Raviraj, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

This petition is filed seeking writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents’ authority from proceeding with the recovery in terms of the assessment order dated 27.09.2023 made at Annexure-E and Demand Notice issued at Annexure-F.

The Annexure-F would reveal that Rs.1,59,54,313/- is demanded as a tax for the assessment year 2013-14. The records would also reveal that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellant authority and she seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the 3rd

respondent-authority to dispose of the matter on merits as expeditiously as possible.

Learned counsel Sri Y. V. Raviraj, appearing for respondents would submit that this petition is not maintainable. In case, the petitioner intends to seek stay of the operation of the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the assessing authority or the Demand Notice issued pursuant to the said order, under the Income Tax Act necessary application can be filed before the competent authority. Thus, he would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submits that after filing of an appeal, the assessee has paid Rs.22,19,837/- towards the part payment of tax demanded. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute this submission.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view the petitioner has to move necessary application before the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, to seek appropriate interim measure as contemplated.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

If the application is filed seeking appropriate interim measure same shall be considered expeditiously, and till then authority shall not take any coercive steps.

This order is passed considering the fact that the assessee has made some payment during pendency of the appeal.

Sd/- JUDGE

CKK/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →