M/S. LOURDES SOCIETY FOR HEALTH CARE & RESEARCH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

WP(C)/21871/2014HC KeralaKLHC01067492201425 August 2014Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. This decision was based on the submission made by the revenue's counsel, on instruction, that the notices which formed the basis of the petitioner's grievance have been withdrawn. Additionally, the revenue assured the court that the stay order granted in Ext.P2 would be complied with. The court recorded the statement of the department filed on 25.08.2014, which indicated the withdrawal of the impugned notices and commitment to adhere to the previous order. Consequently, as the issue raised by the petitioner was rendered moot by the department's actions, the court found no further necessity to adjudicate on the merits of the petition. No specific issue was left undecided as the petition was disposed of based on the department's submission.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Lourdes Society for Health Care & Research, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kochi. The petitioner contended that these notices were issued despite a stay order granted in a previous judgment, Ext.P2. The respondent department, represented by the Standing Counsel for Government of India (Taxes), submitted on instruction that the notices in question have been withdrawn and that the department would comply with the order in Ext.P2. The court was presented with a statement filed by the department on 25.08.2014.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) are in violation of the stay order granted in Ext.P2 judgment? (Question of law and fact, concerning compliance with judicial orders). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices issued by the department were contrary to the existing stay order, Ext.P2, and therefore, the department was acting in defiance of the court's previous directive. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Standing Counsel, stated on instruction that the notices that were the subject of the writ petition have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the revenue assured the court that the order in Ext.P2 would be complied with. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by either party 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 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/3RD BHADRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 21871 of 2014 (H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M/S. LOURDES SOCIETY FOR HEALTH CARE & RESEARCH, LOURDES HOSPITAL PREMISES, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FR.SABU NEDUNILATHU BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RESPONDENTS : ------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI - 682 005. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-11, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd.,

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C) No. 21871 of 2014 - H ====================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2014 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved with the notices, issued by the department, despite there being a stay as per Ext.P2 judgment. The learned Standing Counsel, Government of India (Taxes), submits on instruction that, the notices have been withdrawn and that Ext.P2 would be complied with. In such circumstance, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous recording the statement of the department filed on 25.08.2014. Sd/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // True Copy // P.A To Judge.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →