What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and cryptic. It noted that the respondent had not properly considered the petitioner's contentions or the decisions relied upon.

The petitioner filed a declaration under the VSV Rules for the assessment year 2015-2016. The respondent rejected this declaration through an order dated 18.08.2021.

What were the issues?

Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's declaration under the VSV Rules was reasoned and properly passed. Whether the respondent correctly applied the relevant circular and case law.

Dasappasetty Rajanna vs The Prncipal Commissioner of… | Karnataka High Court 2022

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.21727 OF 2021 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

DASAPPASETTY RAJANNA S/O LATE. DASAPPA CHETTIAR AGED 79 YEARS NO.33, 11TH CROSS, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALACHANDRAN.B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU -2 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND., ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: 18.08.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR TH E YEAR 2015-2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F REJECTING THE DECLARATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM 1 AND 2 THE VSV RULES AND ETC.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

2 ORDER

In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ or certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the Respondent in DIN:ITBA/COM/F/17/2021- 22/1034959058(1) for the AY 2015-16 vide ANNEXURE-‘F’ rejecting the declaration filed by the Petitioner in Form 1 and 2 of the VSV Rules; b. Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the Respondent to accept the Form 1 and 2 filed by the Petitioner on under the VSV Rules; and c. Issue any other writ, order or direction to which the Petitioner is found entitled to in the present facts and circumstances.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 18.08.2021 in order to contend that the same is unreasoned, cryptic, non-

3 speaking and laconic order without any application of mind. In this context, it is submitted that except stating that the case/claim of the petitioner does not come within the scope of Question No.59 of the Circular 21/2020 dated 04.12.2020, the respondent has summarily rejected the claim of the petitioner by referring to certain decisions without stating as to how the ratio of the said decisions were not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent has misdirected itself in proceeding on the premise that the petitioner claimed benefit under question No.59, whilst it is the specific contention of the petitioner that he does not claim benefit under question No.59. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order deserves to quashed and matter be remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the specific assertion/statement made by the petitioner that he would not place reliance upon question No.59 of the Circular 21/2020 dated 04.12.2020 coupled with the fact that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner have not been considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in this regard.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.08.2021 bearing No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2021-22/1034

5 959058 passed by the respondent vide Annexure-F is hereby quashed. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents, citations, etc., before the respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. (iv) All rival contentions between the parties on merits/demerits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

Sd/- JUDGE

Bmc

DASAPPASETTY RAJANNA vs. THE PRNCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments