M/S. ANGEL DISTRIBUTORS V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/15821/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Angel Distributors, represented by its managing partner T.D. Thomas, who challenged the assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The petitioner argued that they were unable to submit a necessary reply to the assessments due to unavailability of documents. The court, however, found that this reason was insufficient to challenge the orders through a writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternate remedy through the appellate process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755538 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI; BOBBY JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: N M MADHU; C S RAJANI
• Keywords: Income tax assessment; Writ petition; Efficacious Alternate Remedy
• Section: 148; 143(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938 WP(C).No. 15821 of 2016 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- M/S. ANGEL DISTRIBUTORS, 18/1490 E, KALLUTHANKADAVU, P.O.PUTHIYARA,KOZHIKODE - 673 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER T.D.THOMAS, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.DEVASIA. BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------- 1.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2.THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ WP(C).No. 15821 of 2016 (C) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------- P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29-07-2014 ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16-07-2015 ISSUED UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-12-2015 ISSUD BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22-09-2014 ISSUED UNDER SEC.143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-08-2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P7 : TRUE COPY THE STATEMENT DATED 29-07-2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 08-09-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE PETITIONER FIRM. P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 14-01-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE CHARTERE ACCOUNTANT OF THE PETITIONER FIRM BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 14-01-2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED OBJECTION DATED 22-01-2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23-07-2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE. P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11-08-2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE. P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-03-2016 IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013. --2-- --2-- WP(C).No. 15821 of 2016 (C) --------------------------- P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30-03-2016 IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014. P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 05-02-2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/ A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. ============= W.P. (C) No. 15821 of 2016 =================== Dated this, the 30th day of May, 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P14 and P15 assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Department. Petitioner submits that he was unable to submit necessary reply as the documents were not available. 2. I do not think that the aforesaid reason can be taken as a ground to challenge the impugned orders in this writ petition. The remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the same in an appropriate appeal. When an efficacious alternate remedy is available, there is no reason why this Court should interfere with Exts.P14 and P15. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petitioner is granted two weeks' time to prefer appeal against the assessment orders. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Rp30/05/2016 //True Copy// P.S to Judge "