C SUBBARAYAN vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/33838/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01006962201601 July 2016Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The petitioner, after some arguments and in view of observations made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, chose not to press the present petition. The High Court granted permission to withdraw.

What were the facts?

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order of the Tribunal. The petitioner sought to quash the said order as erroneous and contrary to law.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the challenge to a Tribunal's order. The petitioner ultimately decided not to pursue the challenge.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 227

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.33838 OF 2016 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:

C. SUBBARAYAN S/O CHEVATTAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O NO.6, MUNIYAPPA GARDEN NEAR SWIMMING POOL, CHANRA LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURAM POST, BANGALORE - 560 097

...PETITIONER (BY SRI.RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN KARNATAKA BANGALORE IV CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS’ ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (JUNIOR)-I, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS’ ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

3.

UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

...RESPONDENTS (NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 04.01.2016 MADE IN O.A.170/0135/2015 AT ANNEX-A PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Mr.Ranganatha S.Jois, learned Counsel for the petitioner after some arguments, in view of the observations already made by the Central

3 Administrative Tribunal giving opportunity to file review after the acquittal, does not press the present petition.

2.

Permission granted.

3.

Writ petition is disposed of as not pressed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

JT/-

More judgments on Section 227

All 314 judgments and leading authorities on Section 227 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →