M/S.CARMEL EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/23535/2013HC KeralaKLHC01066725201326 September 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated September 26, 2013, did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The reasoning for the dismissal is not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but it is implied that the Court found the writ petition to be an inappropriate remedy, likely due to the availability of alternative statutory appeals under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the petition itself was disposed of. The ratio decidendi would be that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when effective alternative remedies are available to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Carmel Education Trust, has filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kottayam. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Revenue. The procedural history indicates that the matter has reached the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam through a writ petition (civil). The petition was admitted and heard on September 26, 2013. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The amount in dispute is not mentioned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies are available to the petitioner under the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, M/s. Carmel Education Trust, has not explicitly stated its arguments in the provided text. However, by filing a writ petition, it implicitly seeks intervention from the High Court. The petitioner is represented by advocates Sri. Anil D. Nair, Sri. R. Sreejith, Smt. Nivedita A. Kamath, and Smt. T.S. Vikeesha. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by Sri. Jose Joseph, SC, for Income Tax, would likely argue that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, such as filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

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 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/4TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 23535 of 2013 (N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- M/S.CARMEL EDUCATION TRUST KOONAMKARA P O, PERUNAD, RANNI PATHANAMTHITTA DIST, REP BY MANAGING TRUSTEE BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH SMT.T.S.VIKEESHA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTRI ROAD KOTTAYAM-686001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) 6TH FLOOR KERA BHAVAN, ERNAKULAM - 682 018 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 23535 of 2013 (N) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------- P1:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.220(6)OF THE ACT P3:- COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT P4:- COPY OF THE STAY PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 26/8/2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH,J. = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.23535 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 26th day of September, 2013

J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal against Ext.P1 order of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal is accompanied by Ext.P4 petition for stay of recovery of the disputed tax. The petitioner is apprehensive of coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 order even during the pendency of the appeal and the petition for stay. 2. I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 petition for stay with notice to the petitioner within a period of two months. The coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 order shall be put on hold till orders are passed on Ext.P4 petition as directed above. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition with the judgment before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of. SD/- V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →