SHIVAGANGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV)

WP/76526/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC02001004201322 August 2024Author: JYOTI MULIMANI4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing directions based on the submissions of the parties. The Court directed respondent No. 6 to furnish a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Upon the satisfaction of this bank guarantee, respondents 1 to 5 were directed to take necessary steps to release the FD receipts and cash of Rs. 34,00,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter, in accordance with the law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the seizure or the underlying tax dispute, focusing instead on facilitating the release of assets upon fulfillment of the condition of a bank guarantee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shivaganga Multipurpose Co-operative Society, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 (Income Tax authorities) to release Fixed Deposit (FD) receipts and cash amounting to Rupees Thirty-Four Lakhs. This amount was seized by respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner's Chairman is Smt. Jyoti Ramesh Chindak. Respondent No. 6, Suresh Motilal Chindak, also appeared. The matter was heard by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent submissions by the counsels for the petitioner and respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus should be issued directing respondents 1 to 5 to release the seized FD receipts and cash of Rs. 34,00,000/- to the petitioner Society? (Question of law and fact, concerning the powers of the Income Tax authorities and the rights of the assessee). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the release of the seized FD receipts and cash. Revenue's Contention: Respondents 1 to 5 (Income Tax authorities) stated that they would take appropriate steps to release the seized assets once a bank guarantee is received from respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6's Contention: Respondent No. 6 agreed to furnish a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the authority within two weeks.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 76526 OF 2013 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SHIVAGANGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KACHERI GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SMT. JYOTI RAMESH CHINDAK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGRAM.S.KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), BENGALURU.

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), LAXMI COMPLEX, APMC ROAD, SADASHIVNAGAR, BELAGAVI.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), C.R. BUILDING, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), SARAF COMPOUND, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IAP)-12, LAXMI COMPLEX, APMC ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BELAGAVI.

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SURESH MOTILAL CHINDAK, AGE: 49 YEARS, R/O: SHIVAGANGA BUILDING, JOSHI MALA, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.V.RAVIRAJ., AND SRI. M.THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATES FOR R1-5; SRI. SHAKTIPRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Thirumalesh., learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri.Shaktiprasad., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Jagadish Patil., for respondent No.6 have appeared in person. Sri.Y.V.Raviraj., learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 has appeared through video conferencing. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to release the F.D

receipts and cash of Rupees Thirty-Four Lakh belonging to the petitioner Society seized by respondents 2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the contentions and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 4. Counsel Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., submits that a mandamus may be ordered directing respondents 1 to 5 to release the F.D receipts and cash to the petitioner society. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that respondent No.6 will furnish a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the authority within two weeks. Counsel Sri.Y.V.Raviraj., submits that once the authority receives the bank guarantee from the sixth respondent, respondents 1 to 5 would take appropriate steps to release the F.D receipts and cash to the petitioner. The oral submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties is placed on record. 5. Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, the sixth respondent is

directed to furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Upon the satisfaction of bank guarantee, respondents 1 to 5 are directed to take necessary steps to release the F.D receipts and cash of Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh only) to the petitioner within four weeks thereon, in accordance with the law. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →