NAZEEB P.A. V. CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

WA/1414/2016

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the appellant, NazeeB P.A., against the dismissal of his writ petition by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was initially filed challenging orders passed against him under the Service Tax Act, alleging these were retaliatory actions for his complaints against officers in the Income Tax Department. The appellant sought a stay on the tax proceedings until his complaint was considered by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, suggesting that the appellant could pursue his grievances through statutory appeals and that the CVC's consideration of his complaint would not affect the tax proceedings. The Division Bench upheld this decision, emphasizing the independence of the tax proceedings from the complaint process with the CVC.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726976 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Finance Act, 1994, Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S BIJU; SREELAL WARRIER; JOHN VARGHESE; B RAJESH
• Assessee Lawyers: LIZA CYRIAC
• Keywords: Central Vigilance Commission; Finance act; Statutory Appeals; Service Tax Act; Whistle Blowers Protection
• Section: 85

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938 WA.No. 1414 of 2016 () IN WP(C).20693/2016 -------------------------------------------- WP(C) 20693/2016 DATED 24-06-2016 --------------- APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :- ----------------------- NAZEEB P.A., PEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, DOOR NO.43/229 PEEDIYAKKAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH - 682 018. BY ADV. SMT.LIZA MEGHAN CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :- -------------------------- 1. CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATARKATA BHAVAN, A BLOCK GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI - 110 023, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF VIGILENCE CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, SOUTH ZONAL UNIT-1, 5TH FLOOR CUSTOM HOUSE, ANNEXE 33, RAJAJI SALAI CHENNAI-600 001. 3. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. 4. JOINT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. WA.No. 1414 of 2016 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX DIVISION, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. R1 BY SRI.S.BIJU, CGC BY SRI.SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC BY SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SC BY SRI.B.RAJESH, SC FOR CUSTOMS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08- 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag.CJ & MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. ---------------------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1414 of 2016 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of August, 2016 J U D G M E N T Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. 1. The writ petitioner has approached this Division Bench by filing this appeal against the judgment dated 24.6.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.20693 of 2016, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with the observation that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the Central Vigilance Commissioner considering Ext.P5 petition preferred by the petitioner. 2. Records reveal that the appellant herein is an assessee under the Service Tax Act. Ext.P4 dated 9.5.2016 and Annexure A1 dated 31.5.2016 have been passed against the appellant on the ground that he has violated the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant has, instead of questioning those orders by filing statutory appeals before the concerned statutory appellate authorities as required under Section 85 of the Finance Act, filed Ext.P5 petition before the first respondent/Central Vigilance Commission seeking protection W.A.1414/2016 -: 2 :- under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 with an allegation that the orders under Ext.P4 and Annexure A1 are passed by the 4th respondent only to victimize the appellant since he had preferred complaints against the subordinate officers in the Income Tax Department. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the Central Vigilance Commission/first respondent is not considering Ext.P5 application filed by him and till a decision on Ext.P5 is taken by the first respondent, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 may not go on. 3. The learned single Judge having heard the concerned parties, dismissed the writ petition with the observation that it is open for the appellant to file appeal before the concerned appellate authorities, questioning Ext.P4 order. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that merely for the reason that a complaint was preferred before the Central Vigilance Commission, the appellant shall not be allowed to contend that Ext.P4 order should be stayed. 4. The very arguments, which were raised before the learned Single Judge are sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. W.A.1414/2016 -: 3 :- 5. We do not find any reason to disagree with the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge and as much as the learned Single Judge is justified in observing that it is open for the appellant to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority questioning the tax orders at Ext.P4 and Annexure A1. So also, it is open for the appellant to pursue the complaint before the Central Vigilance Commission as per law. Merely because a complaint is pending consideration before the Central Vigilance Commission, the proceedings before the tax authorities cannot be stalled since both proceedings are totally independent of each other. It is open for the appellant to take appropriate grounds before the tax authorities, if the orders of tax at Ext.P4 and Annexure A1 are questioned before appropriate authorities. 6. Since the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR JUDGE Jvt/1.8.2016 "