M/S.GEOJIT BNP PARIBAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 (2)

WP(C)/25963/2013HC KeralaKLHC01069151201324 October 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, did not decide the substantive issues related to the income tax assessment. Instead, the Court considered the maintainability of the writ petition. The Court held that the assessee has alternative remedies available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, which are considered efficacious. Therefore, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning is based on the principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to bypass the statutory appellate procedures laid down by the legislature. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless there are compelling reasons to deviate from this rule. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, leaving the assessee to pursue their remedies under the Income Tax Act. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the petition itself was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order. The respondent authorities are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1 (2), Kochi, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi, and the Commissioner of Income Taxes, Kochi. The writ petition was filed seeking appropriate directions or orders concerning the assessment proceedings. The specific assessment year(s) and the nature of the order or action under challenge are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, nor is the amount in dispute. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when alternative remedies are available under the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee, M/s. Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd., likely sought intervention from the High Court, implying a belief that the available alternative remedies were either inadequate or that there were exceptional circumstances warranting writ jurisdiction. Specific arguments or reliance on precedents by the assessee are not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, would typically argue that the assessee must exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the Income Tax Act, such as appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. The revenue's specific arguments or reliance on authorities are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/2ND KARTHIKA, 1935 --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M/S.GEOJIT BNP PARIBAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. 5TH FLOOR, FINANCE TOWERS KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. C.J. GEORGE BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE -1 (2)

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXES

BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT. P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 EXT. P2 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07.12.2010 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 EXT. P3 COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 29.06.2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 UNDER SECTION 271 D EXT. P4 COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 29.06.2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 UNDER SECTION 271 E EXT. P5 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2011 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 EXT. P6 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20.01.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER EXT. P7 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 04.01.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER EXT. P8 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28.07.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P3 PENALTY ORDER EXT. P9 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28.07.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P4 PENALTY ORDER EXT. P10 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 25.01.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P5 ASSESSMENT ORDER EXT. P11 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.12.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT. P12 COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 23.05.2012 EXT. P13 COPY OF THE NOTES OF SUBMISSION DATED 04.07.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXT. P14 COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 11.10.2012 EXT. P15 COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 23.11.2012 EXT. P16 COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED 7.11.2012

EXT. P17 COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 13.02.2013 EXT. P18 COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 28.08.2013 EXT. P19 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 01.10.2013 EXT. P20 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY AND EARLY DISPOSAL DATED 21.10.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25963 of 2013 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2013

J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed Exts.P6 to P10 appeals against Exts.P1 to P5 orders of assessment and penalty. The petitioner has filed Ext. P20 petition for stay of recovery of the amount demanded in Ext. P19 notice. Ext. P19 notice depicts the total amount allegedly due from the petitioner under Exts. P1 to P5 orders. 2. It is pointed out that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 6,10,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores and Ten Lakhs only) towards the total demand of Rs. 22,50,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores and Fifty Lakhs only) . Interest of justice would be met by directing the second respondent to dispose of Exts. P6 to P10 appeals as expeditiously as possible. Every endeavour shall be made to dispose of the appeals within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. The coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P19 notice shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a further

W.P.(C) No.25963 of 2013 2 sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) towards the dues with the first respondent in two instalments. The first instalment shall be made on or before 30.11.2013 and the second instalment shall be made on or before 31.12.2013. The recovery proceedings can continue if the petitioner commits default in the payment of instalments as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of. SD/- V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →