Madiraju Nagendra Rama Krishna Rao V. Union of India, Represented by Prl Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, AP and TS, Hyderabad and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

WP/33074/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Madiraju Nagendra Rama Krishna Rao against the Union of India, represented by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, AP and TS, and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to take action against the third respondent for allegedly filing false Income Tax Returns (ITRs) without the petitioner's notice, violating the terms of partnership deeds and a dealership agreement. The court found the petition premature as the petitioner had not adequately addressed his grievances to the Income Tax Department or Indian Oil Corporation Ltd before approaching the court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 817834 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Article 21 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MUKHERJEE; DOMINIC FERNANDES
• Assessee Lawyers: D V RAO
• Keywords: Dealership Agreement; False ITRs; Income Tax; Partnership deed; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

"[ 342s ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF.TELANG.ANA AT HYDERABAD rrt rrrE rir-\" - - - (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF-NOVEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR . PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO:33074 oF 2024 AND 1 Between: Madiraiu Nagendra Rama Krishna Rao' S/O Lakshminarasimha Rao' R/O H No- 1-7' Ramalayarn Street, uangar,'ti' iVl, S'1h'palli (tr/) Khammam (D) ...PETITIONER Union of lndra, Represented by Prl Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax' AP and TS, HYderabad The Director, (Marketing), lndian Oil Corporation Ltd ' 3079/3' Sadiq Nagar' L.a. tito t ,4arg, New Delhi-49 y1?, *i\"J, ilT: ti8' \".\"; off h3J hl J fl l,i8 l.. 3 & :T:: I Ji[81#i#:lYi: Rodd, SathuPalli Town, Khammam ...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 decraring 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 01.04.1g85) and partnership deed, dated- '19.04.1985 (amended on 11'07'1985 and 08.07\"1992) and dealership agreement with Respondent No.2 as arbitrary, i egar, corrupt, against rule of raw, vioration of article l4, 2'1 of Constitution of lndia Consequently' direct the Respondent No l and 2 to take immediate action against the Respondent No. 3 for firing farse rrRs without the notice of the petitioner by viorating the terms and conditions of the 2 a partnership deec,, dated- 26.o2.1968 (amended on 01.04.1985) and partnership deed, dated- 19.04.1985 (amended on 11.07.1g85 and 08.07.,l992) and dealership agreerrent with Respondent No. 2. lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition und':r Section 151 Cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired rn support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to appear before this Honorable court persona'y arong rtrith records i.e rrRs of the Respondent No. 3 since 1gg5 and a, dealership agreemonts of Respondent No.3 with Respondent No 2. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI DR.D V RAO Counsel for the Respondent No..t : SRI MUKHERJEE, rep., SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY.SO.GEN Counsel for the Respondent No.2:SRl DOMINIC FERNANDES, Sr.SC FOR CBIC Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : -_ The Court made the following: ORDER ',b- '. TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K' SARATH WRIT PETITION No.33074 of2O24 ORDER (Per Hon'ble SP,J) Dr. D.V. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner' Sri B' Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar' learned Deputy Solicitor General of india' for respondent No' 1 and sri Dominic Fernandes, learned senior Standirlg counsel for cBIC' for respondent No.2' 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief: I I '...p1eased to issue a Writ Order or direction -o.. \"p?,i\".rtarty ott\" in the nature of Writ -of iilart\"\" a\"claring the action of the Respondent No l-;;;, in not taking action against- the Respondent N\"*i f\". hling false lTRs without the notice of- the 'p\",i,i..\". Uy froUtit'g the terms and conditions of the ;;,\"ershtp deed d\"ated 26'o2'196a (amended on 6i.o+.rseil and partnership deed' 11qg J:^0^1 1?85 A:;;;;-';--r-r.oz.rsas''',a oa'o7'tee2 and d\"al..\"ttip agreement with Respondent No 2 as *t\"1\".y, ilf.g\"f, corrupt, aqailst ru|9 3i law' -v;otltion ;\"-;;:i\" i+' a 21 of constitution of .lndia i:r\"*q\"\".Uv, direct the ResPon$enl *\"\" 1,T9 3 ' tJ\" li-.ai\"t action againit the Respondel!..N\"'3 i*\".itri.g irt\"\" ITRs without the notice of the Petrtroner bv violating the terms and conditions of - I he rl-..\"t'ip-a\".a d\"t\"a 26'o2't968 (*\":'9:{ - \"' 01.04.1985) and partnership deed dit:l .t?^0^1 t985 A\";;;J\"'.; ri.oz'rsss' ana oa'o7'ree2l and dealership agreement with Respondent No 2 ald pass. ..\" A plain reading of the prayer clause shows that the I t t I , l ,petitiorrer is seeking direction against the Income Tax Department 2 i- --- ---.-_ cloqed ard indial Oil Corporation Ltd. Bench, lear.rred counsel for the ilTRUE COPY// SD/- L. LAKSHMI BABU ASS On a specific qu(:ry from the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred a representation/notice for rhe present grievance on ,19.1 1.2024 (page No. I4). A plain reading of the.said representati()rr / notice shows that it is not addressed to the Income Tax Department, in fact, it is not even addressed to the Indian OiI Corporation Ltd but only a copy thereof is provided to ths 1r6ian Oil Corporatic,n I-16. In absence of appraising the {ncome Tax Departmenr alrout the grievancc ol the petitioner by making specific representation, in our opinion, Writ petition, at this stage, is premature. 4. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of, by reserving Iiberty to the petitioner to appraise the Income .Iax I)epartment about his grievance if law so permits. No costs. Interlo<:utory applications, if any pending, shall also stand 'lit'.: t/sEcttoN GISTRAR To, OFFICER 1 IfEJrl*!'\"t ccmmissioner of lncome Tax, Union of tndia, Ap and rS, IB: ?',t'\"J:?JYl,T5\"J:?l; ltf'\"n oir corporation Ltd , 307e/3, s,adiq Nasar, One CC to SRI DR D.V.RAO, Advocate. tOpUCl 8,ffi 3:, jip\":ll.A?:i\"Ty:,:I,:yy*1J3\"?xy.:?38,36f \"n.,.,rof ,ndia), t\"d\"\"rta? to sRl DotvllNlc FERNANDEs; senior stanuing counser for cBrc. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP 2 J 4 6 a' , HIGH COURT DATED:26 t11t2024 ORDER Jt 1 HE ST4,t 2 i ;t,:. Zrii ( q J (j I o5sp^rCH gO WP.No.33074 of 2024 .DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS eS dr e ( l l I l "