M/S YOJAKA (INDIA) PVT LTD V. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

WP/9655/2023

AI Insights

In this case, M/S. Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, filed a writ petition against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), challenging the rejection of their application for waiver of interest and dropping of TDS demand. The petitioner argued that the order passed by respondent No.2 was unreasoned and violated the principles of natural justice as it did not consider the submissions and documents provided by the petitioner. The court found that the impugned order was indeed non-speaking and lacked reasoning, thus violating natural justice, and decided to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761730 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUSHAL TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: VANAJA R
• Keywords: Natural Justice; Non-speaking order; Reconsideration; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 220(2A)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6487 WP No. 9655 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 9655 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. YOJAKA (INDIA) PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI JAGADISH BOLOOR D. No.3-28/43, 2ND FLOOR, ABCO TRADE CENTRE, MANGALORE -575006, PAN AAACY18520. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VANAJA M. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) AND TPS, NANDI GUDDA ROAD, ATTAVAR, MANGALORE-575001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) PANAJI-GOA, GROUND FLOOR, PUNDALIKNIWAS, RVA-DE-OUREM, PANAJI-GOA-403001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI PASSED BY R-2 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.03.2023 RECEIVED INTIMATION ON 20.03.2023 IN ITBA/COM/S/91/2022- 23/1050999121(1) (ANNEXURE-Q). Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6487 WP No. 9655 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs; \"a) Issue a direction in the nature of Writ of certiorari or orders or direction in the nature of Writ or certiorari passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application by the petitioner dated 17/03/2023 received intimation on 20/03/2023 in ITBA/COM/S/91/2022-3/1050999121(1) (Annexure-Q); b) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus or order to reconsider application/petition dated 09/12/2021 (Annexure-N); c) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction or order in the nature of Writ of mandamus to reconsider the case sympathetically on the ground of natural justice; and d) Allow the petition with cost.\" 2. Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6487 WP No. 9655 of 2023 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to reiterating various contentions urged in this petition and referring to the material on record, invites my attention to the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 220 (2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961, in order to point out that the same was unreasoned and non-speaking order without assigning reasons as to why the claim of the petitioner for waiver of interest/dropping of TDS demand was rejected by the respondent. In this context, it is submitted that despite the petitioner putting-forth several contentions and producing several documents, respondent No.2 has not considered the same and proceeded to pass the impugned order which is violative of principles of natural justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the order impugned and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, despite the petitioner making detailed submissions both oral and in writing before respondent No.2 and producing - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:6487 WP No. 9655 of 2023 pleadings and documents, respondent No.2 has proceeded to pass the order impugned unreasoned, non-speaking, laconic and cryptic order without application of mind and without assigning any reasons as to why the claim of the petitioner was being rejected, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 6. Under the circumstances, it is just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order, remand the matter to respondent No.2 for re-consideration afresh, in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the following; Order i) Writ petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 17/03/2023 received intimation on 20/03/2023 in ITBA/COM/S/91/2022- 3/1050999121(1) (Annexure-Q) is set aside. iii) Matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents etc., before - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6487 WP No. 9655 of 2023 respondent No.2, who shall consider the same and proceed further, in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 "