JAYAKRISHNAN.R. V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/27326/2012

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Jayakrishnan, an advocate, against the Union of India and others, seeking a directive to amend Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. The petitioner faced an issue when attempting to sell gold ornaments worth more than Rs. 20,000 for his mother's hospital expenses, as the jewelry shop (3rd respondent) could not pay in cash due to the legal restrictions cited in their reply to the petitioner's notice. The court dismissed the petition, stating it cannot compel the legislature to amend laws.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 739192 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: V G ARUN; T R HARIKUMAR
• Keywords: Amendment; Income Tax; Mandamus; Rule 6DD; Section 40A(3); Writ petition
• Section: 40A(3); 6DD

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/28TH KARTHIKA 1934 WP(C).No. 27326 of 2012 (M) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- JAYAKRISHNAN.R. ADVOCATE, M.K.VASUDEVA KURUP LAW OFFICES KURUP'S CHAMBERS, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686002. BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (FINANCE) MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 077. 2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI-110 077. 3. M/S.JOSCO FASHION JEWELERS GENERAL MANAGER, RAJEEV GANDHI COMPLEX KOTTAYAM-686001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27326 of 2012 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ESTIMATE HANDED OVER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.09.2012 P2: COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 26.09.2012 P3: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27326 OF 2012(M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2012 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a lawyer of the Kottayam Bar. According to him, to raise funds to meet the hospital expenses of his mother, he wanted to sell 12 gms of gold. However, the price payable to him being more than Rs.20,000/- the 3rd respondent is alleged to have informed the petitioner that they could not make payment in cash for the purchase of gold ornaments. The petitioner alleges that he thereupon issued Ext.P2 notice to the 3rd respondent demanding damages for the mental torture, agony and humiliation suffered by him. It is also alleged that on receipt of the notice 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 reply stating that in view of Section 40 A(3) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, they could not have made payments otherwise. 2. It is thereupon the petitioner has filed this writ petition and the prayer made reads thus. WPC.No. 27326/2012 :2 : “to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the first respondent to bring about appropriate amendment to Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, making the upper limit of Rs.20,000/- not applicable in the purchase of gold ornaments by jewellery shops and also by exempting the requirement of payment by way of cheque and demand draft, for purchase of gold made after banking hours. “ 3. Evidently, therefore what is sought for by the petitioner is a direction to the Legislature to amend the law in the manner as sought for by him. It is settled that this court cannot require the Legislature to amend any law, much less in any particular manner. Therefore the relief sought in the writ petition is not the one which is capable of being granted in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ "