What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a negative writ, as sought by the petitioner, cannot be granted under Article 226. The petitioner should approach the competent authority or reply to the respondent if aggrieved.

The petitioner, a cooperative bank, received communications for Assessment Year 2017-18 in the name of a different entity. The petitioner sought a direction to prevent coercive action regarding demands not related to them.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of a writ petition seeking a negative writ and the appropriate recourse for a party aggrieved by incorrect tax demands.

Sindagi Taluka Prathamika… vs ITO | Karnataka High Court 2022

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION No.200203/2022 (I-IT) BETWEEN: Sindagi Taluka Prathmika Sahakari Krishi Mattu Grameena Abhivruddi Bank Ni. Rep. by its Secretary Ishwar Kantappa Ballolli S/o Kantappa Ballolli Main Road, Opp. Bus Stand, Sindagi-586 128 ... Petitioner (By Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav & Sri Shreehari Kusta, Advocates) AND: Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Vijayapur, Vijayapur Dist.-586 101 ... Respondent This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ directing the respondent to not take any coercive action against the petitioner respect of demands that do not relate to the petitioner.

This petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-

2 ORDER Heard Sri Gopal Krishna B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been served with certain communication in respect of the Assessment year 2017-18 in the name of M/s. The Taluka Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Sindagi, Bijapur. However, same has been served on the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has sought for direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against them. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Perusal of writ petition would indicate that the petitioner has sought for issuance of negative writ against the respondents which cannot be granted under the circumstances and by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action by the respondent-authorities, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent

3 authority or may reply to the respondents for consideration of his claim, if so advised. In that view of the matter, writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE BL

SINDAGI TALUKA PRATHAMIKA SAHAKARI KRISHI MATTU GRAMEENA ABHIVRUDDI BANK NI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

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