Khammam (D) V. Union of India, Represented by Prl Chief Commissioner of Income Tax' AP and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ravi Auto Service

WP/35222/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a petitioner from Khammam who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., seeking action against a respondent for filing false Income Tax Returns (ITRs) and violating the terms of partnership and dealership agreements. The petitioner argued that the inaction of the respondents constituted a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The High Court of Telangana, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the relevant legal provisions, concluded that there was no basis for issuing a Writ of Mandamus as there was no corresponding duty for the Department to decide on the petitioner's representation. The court referenced several precedents and noted the absence of a public law element in the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 703028 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh v. M.R. Apparao, Bhartiya Kishan Sangh District Bhind v. Union of India, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa, Indore Development Authority v. Sansar Publication Private Limited, Sikha Ghosh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR; DOMINIC FERNANDES
• Assessee Lawyers: D V RAO
• Keywords: Dealership Agreement; Income Tax; Legal Representation; Partnership deed; Writ of Mandamus; False ITRs
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

"[ 34301 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI WRIT PETITION NO:35222OF 20 Between: #Sl{3,.$H,To,l'n['11{''\"JH\"T,1r?\":'\"r-|.35i'ElruX?#i\"0,1\"S?^\",i3iP?ftl: Khammam (D) .....PETITIONER AND I 2 3 Union of lndia, Represented by Prl Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax' AP Jno is, Hydeiabab. The Director (Marketing), lndian Oil Corporation Ltd', 3079/3' Sadiq Nagar' J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi49. Ui?',Tfi xi,A,*f uJEr[\"ifJJ:'#l,ifl il:,?J''',\"5\"'i13ff.:',\"$5:'+:',11\". Rodd. Sathupalli Town, Khammam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ot lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleasedtoissueaWrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyorieinthenatureof Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No' 1 and 2 in not taking action against the Respondent No' 3 for filing false lTRs without the notice of the Petitioner by violating the terms and conditions of the partnership deed' dated. 26.02.1968 (amended on 01'04'1985) and partnership deed' dated' 19.04.1985 (amended on 11.07.1985 and 08.07.1992) and dealership agreement with Respondent No. 2 as arbikary, illegdl, corrupt' against rule of law' violation of article 14,21 of oonstitution of lndia consequenfly, ln view of the Hon'ble supreme court Judgment, dated. 09.09.2024 passed in sLp(c) 2s782 ot 2023, direct the Respondent No. l and 2 to take immediate action against the Respondent No. 3 for filing false lrRs without the notice of the petitioner by violating the terms and conditions of the partnership deed, dated. 26.02.1g6g (amended on 01.04.'lgB5) and partnership deed, dated. 19.04.1985 (amended on 11.07.1985 and 08.07.1992) and dearership agreement with Respondent No.2. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Undel section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ p\"tltion, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to appear before this Hon'ble court personally along with records i.e. lrRs of the Respondent No.3 since 19g5 and all dealership agreements of Respondent No. 3 with Respondent No.2. Counsel for the Petitioner : DR.D.V.RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : -- The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G' RADIIA RANI WRIT PETITION NO.3 5222 of2O24 ORDER (Per Hon'ble SP,J) Dr. D.V. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner' Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India' for respondent No.l ald Sri Dominic Fernandes' learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent No'2' 2 Heard on admission. 3. This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court' Earlier, the petitioner filed W'P'No'33074 of 2024' which was disposed of by order dated 26 'll '2024 ' This Court permitted the petitioner to appraise the Income Tax Department about his grievance, if law so Permits' 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in furtherance of this court's order, the petitioner sent a legal representation/notice, which was received by the Department on 29.tl.2024 and it is prayed that the said representation/notice be directed to be decided by the Department' 5. On specific query repeatedly made from the Bench' whether there exists any legal provision/ enabling section' which permits the petitioner to Iile such representation and a 7 correspondin€i obligation on the Department to decidr: the same, sadly, no ansiwer is forthcoming. This is trite that a Writ of Maldamus r:eur be issued, provided, there exists a provision for preferring su<:h representation and corresponding duty for the Department t,t decide the same (see Director of Setflements, Andhra Pradesh v. M.R. Apparaor, Bhartiya Kishan Sangh District Bhind v. Union of India2r Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa3 and Indore Development Authority v. Sansar publicatfn private Limiteda). Apart from this, there is no public law element involved in this Writ petition 6. Learne,d counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of lJupreme Court in Sikha Ghosh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limiteds. A careful reading of this order shows that in paragraph No.4, the Supreme Court recorded that the question of rnaintainability of writ petition has not been examined and order is passed on account of consensus of the parties. Thus, the said order of Supreme Court is of no assistance to the petitioner. t t ' zooz 1a1 scc o:a ' zoot 1a1 veu s+e nz1 '2019 (s) scc 119 o rLR 2019 Mp 742 (DB) ' stp (c)r,ro.zszez of zoz: ) 3 7. The petitioner has a remedy under the civil law' The necessarJr ingredients of issuing the Writ of Maldamus are not satisfled. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail an appropriate remedy under law. No costs Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. /ffRUE COPYI/ SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTI OFFICER to ,. ,n\" Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax' Union of lndia' AP and TS' Hvderabad. , T#\"iffik;r (Marketing), lndian oil Corporation Ltd'' 3079/3' Sadiq Nagar' - J.B. Tito Mard, New Delhi49' s. inl tvi;-\"lbin\"si oii.\"6-i'rtals-Ravi Auto Service^',named Mr Kothuru Satvanaravana, S/\" d;'#;R;;\"ni\" u'r'r\"- s-st ' Sri venkateswara Takies Rodd, Sathupalli Town, Khammam - -. . ^- a. ijiEtcl6 rin D.v.RAo, Advocate to?gcl--^. 5. one cc to sRl GADi?\"ifi;EEiiiirir'rnn' brpurY soLlclroR GENERAL -' OF INDIA Advocate IOPUC] o. 5i,\"'cd't\" sni ooilrrlrC Fi=nrunuors' Advocate (oPUC) 7. Two CD CoPies SA PSK a i l I l I HIGH COURT DATED:1611212024 ORDER WP.No.35222 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. J 2 7 JAl,i 2[25 Y E STar€ { ( + 7 z o .i t DE,q\"\" r r5 "