L. Bharath Kumar V. The Union of India

WP/1321/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by L. Bharath Kumar and L. Divya against multiple respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Telangana, seeking judicial intervention to investigate and take action against alleged financial misconduct by respondents 9 to 14. The petitioners, who are associated with respondent No.7 (a company), claimed that respondents 9 to 14 had taken over the company and were conducting unauthorized financial transactions violating GST and Income Tax laws. The court, however, found that the issues raised were more suited for civil or criminal proceedings rather than writ jurisdiction, especially given the existing disputes and proceedings between the parties.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 685175 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Indian Income Tax Act 1961, Indian Penal Code, Criminal Laws, GST Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B MUKHARJEE; SUNITHA; RAJESHWAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: ARCHANA REDDY
• Keywords: Economic offences; Illegal Transactions; Inaction; Investigation; Misappropriation of funds; Money laundering; Tax Evasion; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

"[ 337s ] FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO.1321 OF 2024 Between: 1. L. Bharath Kumar, S/o L. Narasimha, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Business, Rio H.No.2-17-127 167,Sri Raghavendra Nagar Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad 2. L Divya, Wo L. Kranti Kumar, R/o H.No.2-17-127167, Sri Raghavendra Nagar Colony Uppal, Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The Union of lndia, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, North Block, New Delhi. 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue CT Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Principal Director of lncome Tax (lnv,), 8th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004. 4. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, C.T Hyderabad, Telangana - 500001. Complex, Nampally. 5. The Commercial Tax Officer, Nacharam-l Circle, 3rd Floor, M4 Block, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500001. 6 The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Income Tax Department, O/o Addl ClT, Range-1, 7th Floor, lncome Tax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank. Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004. 7. M/s. Seiko Polyclosures Company, lOffc .11/8/A-1, Road No 9, IDA Nacharam, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Authorised Partner. B M/s Vishwin Plastick Traders, H.No.3-4-17lNR, Opp . Shiva Hotel. Mallapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Represented by lts Proprietor. 9. L. Sailala, Wo. L. Venkata Ramana, Aged about 60 years. R/o. H.No.45l142Nl21l I I 1, RamaLingeswara Nagar-ll, Venkata Ramana Colony. Kurnool, A.P. 10 L. Praveen Kumar, Sio. L. VenkataRarnana, Aged about 41 years. Flat number 401, 4th Floor, Akarapu Residency - ll, Green Park Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500035 r HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) I '1 1.L. Naveen Kumar, S/o. L. VenkataRamana, Aged about 37 years, R/o. H.No.45l142N 121 l1 11, Rama Lingeswara Nagar-ll, VenkataRamana Colony, Kurnool, A.P. 12.L. Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late L. Seethiah, Aged about 66 years, R/o. H.No.45l 1 42N I 21 I 1 I 1, Rama Lingeswara Nagar-l I, VenkataRamana Colony, Kurnool, A.P. '13.L. Mamata, Wo. L. Praveen Kumar, Aged about 38 years, Flat numbeli0l, 4th Floor, Akarapu Residency - ll, Green Park Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500035. 14.L. Sravani, Wo. L. Naveen Kumar, Aged about 36 years, R/o. H.No45/1424/121 11 I 1, Rama Lingeswara Nagar-ll, VenkataRamana Colony, Kurnool, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of Respondent Nos.3 to 6 in carrying out investigation in illegal transactions, money laundering and tax evasion of crores of Rupees to the Govt., carried out by Respondent Nos.9 to 14, in spite of repeated requests made by the Petitioners, the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are not investigating the financial transactions of Respondent Nos.7 and 8 company, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the lndian Constitution, Indian lncome Tax Act 1961, provisions of the lndian Penal Code, Criminal Laws and Consequently to direct the respondent authorities more specifically Respondent No.3 and 4 herein to carry out investigation and take cognizance of the ongoing serious Economic offences and illegal transactions, tax evasion and misappropriation of funds carried out by Respondent Nos. 7 to 14. lA NO: I OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the official Respondents to consider petitioners representations dt.l410812023, 3Ol'1012023 and initiate investigation on the ongoing illegal transactions of Respondent No.7 and 8, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the official Respondents to Cancel GST Registration and Deactivate PAN Registration of the Firm M/s. Seiko Polyclosures with immediate effect and Seize the company M/s. Seiko Polyclosures from further misappropriation of funds, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. ARCHANA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Mr. MOHD BASEER RIYAZ Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: Mr. B. MUKHARJEE FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 6: Ms. P. SUNDARI, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR Ms. SUNITHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 lo 14:. - The Court made the following: ORDER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5: SRI RAJESHWAR RAO, AGP FOR COMMERGIAL TAXES I I ! THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSTTY AND TTIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI W.P. No. L32L of 2024 ORDER:per r'ro n'ble Si Justice P.9AM KosHY) Heard Ms.Archana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Mohad Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mi.B.Mukharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No. l, Ms.Sunitha, learned counsel appearing under the instructions of Ms.P.Sundari, learned Senior Standing counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 6 and Mr.Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State appearing for respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present Writ Petition has been hied for the following relief: \"To issue a Wit Order or Direction more particularlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the inaction of Respondent ly'os 3 to 6 ht carrying out inuestigation in illegal transactions money laundering and tax euasion. of crores of Rupees to the Gout carried out by Respondenf /Vos 9 to'14 in spite of repeated requests made by the Petitiorers tle Respondent Nos 3 to 6 are not inuestigating the financial transactions of Respondent Nos 7 and I compang as illegal arbitrary and in uiolation of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitutiort lndian lncome Tax Act 1961 prouisions of tle Indian Penal Code CimitaL Laus and ConsequentlA to direct the respondent authoities more specificallA Respor-Ldent No 3 and 4 herein to carry out inuestigotion and take cognizance of the ongoing senous Economic offences and illegal transactions tax euasion and misappropiation of funds atrriecl out by Respondent Nos 7 to 14 and to pass such other orders\". 2 3. Upon hearing the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, what reflects is that the petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director of the respondent No.7/Company. It is alleged that the respondent Nos.9 to 14 have illegally taken over the functioning of the said company. They are now operating the same without taking the petitioners into confidence. It is contended that without the knowledge or sanction of the petitioners, respondent Nos.9 to 14 are carrying out huge amount of financial transactions which in contravention to the provisions of GST Act and as well as the provisions of Income Tax Act. The illegal transactions been carried out by the respondent Nos.9 to 14 have been highlighted by the petitioners to the respondent authorities by way of various representations and now the present writ petition has been filed seeking for the aforestated relief for taking appropriate action on tlrc said represenl al ions. 4. During the course of hearing, it has been reflected that there seems to be inter se disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.9 to 14. There are criminal and civil cases pending between the parties before various courts of law. In the teeth of those proceedings, the present writ petition has now been filed which in the opinion of this Bench is only with an intention to put further pressure upon the on going criminal and civil disputes before various court of law. Moreover, what is also reflected is that I i t' i{ 'i I I I I r { I I I I i t I I I i a i ! : i I i I t I ! 3 prima facie, there does not appear to be any order v\"'hich is under challenge or an action by which any of the rights of the petitioners much less a fundamental right of the petitioners are infringed, entailing them to avail the writ jurisdiction before this Court. The only relief sought for is for the respondents to take appropriate action and prosecution against the private respondent Nos.9 to 14 for the'so called violation under the GST Act and also under the Income Tax Act. 5. In tJle given circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that, in the factual backdrop, the dispute is not one which could be seized by way of a writ petition at this juncture. Nonetheless, if the petitioners have approached the respondents on the administrative side, by hling detailed representation, in turn the respondents are expected to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance lvith law. 6. This Writ Petition thus fails and is accordingly rejected with the above observation. No order as to costs. 7 Consequently, miscell.rneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR r SECTION OFFICER I To, 1. One CC to Sri MOHD BASEER RIYAZ, Advocate [OPUCI 2. One CC to Sri GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia loPUcl 3. Two CCs to Sri RAJESHWAR RAO, GP for Commercial Taxes, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to Ms. SUNITHA Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies : I I HIGH COURT DATED:1210112024 { .re s T4 14: t o r-) 0 5 FEB 202[ f,, * .D..1 r.t ORDER WP.No.1321 of 2024 REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 'rl >r i ! i I ! I "