What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the petitioner was not served with notice of the proceedings. In the absence of proof of service, it was held that there was a denial of justice.

The petitioner sought to quash an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and sought the refund of tax deducted at source along with interest. The petitioner claimed they were not served with notice of the proceedings that led to the impugned order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the petitioner was properly served with notice of the proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax, and if not, whether this constituted a denial of justice.

H V Puttaraja Nayaka vs Union of India | Karnataka High Court 2015

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO. 15901 OF 2015(T-IT)

BETWEEN:

H.V PUTTARAJA NAYAKA S/O H.R.VEERAPPA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT VALMIKI, NH4 BANGALORE SERVICE ROAD, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 598.

... PETITIONER (By Sri. P.H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV.,)

AND

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

THE COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAXES NO.284/1, PARK NEW BUILDING, P.J.EXTENSION, 4TH MAIN, DAVANAGERE-577 002. ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER VIDE ANNEX-G DTD.26.3.2013 PASSED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. DIRECT THE R-2 AUTHORITY TO RELEASE AND REFUND AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,07,423/- BEING THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ALONG WITH INTEREST. & ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Suffice it to notice that petitioner was not served with notice of proceeding of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Davanagere in F.No.119(2)(b)/6/P.28/CIT- DVG/2012-13 leading to the order dated 26.3.2013 Annexure-G impugned. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of notice of the proceeding, in fact, was served on the petitioner, it cannot but be said that there is denial of justice.

In the result, this petition is allowed. The order impugned quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh.

Since parties are represented by learned counsel, petitioner to appear before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Davanagere on 28.10.2015 without any further notice.

Sd/- JUDGE

ln.

H V PUTTARAJA NAYAKA vs. UNION OF INDIA

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments