Omega Development Ventures V. Union of India

WP/13364/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Omega Development Ventures, represented by its director, who filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the summons issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Unit, Hyderabad. The summons, dated 22.04.2021, required the petitioner to appear and furnish information as per an attached annexure. The petitioner argued that the summons was arbitrary, illegal, and premature, violating several articles of the Constitution and the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988. The court heard arguments from both sides but decided not to interfere with the summons at this stage, allowing the petitioner to challenge any future summons or orders as deemed necessary.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 721607 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 21, 3004 of the Constitution of India, PBT Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B MUKHERJEE; B NARASIMHA SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SHARAT KUMAR
• Keywords: Benami Transactions; Harassment; Legal Proceedings; Writ of Mandamus; Impugned summons
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT .THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY Between: Omega Development Ventures, Rep.by its Director 2-16-127, Prashant Nagar CLY, Opp Survey of lndia, Hyderabad - 500039, T.S. ...PETITIONER AND ...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 impugned summons Dl.22lO4l2O21 issued against the petitioners PAN. AABCO5302P, DIN and Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/1712021- 211032617580 (1) by the 4th respondent, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and premature thus violating Article 14, 16, 21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and also, the provisions of PBT Act, 1988 and set aside the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to proceed further on the basis of the impugned summons d1.2210412021 against the petitioner in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay all further proceedings against summons D|. 2210412021 issued to the WRIT PETITION NO: 13364 OF 2022 1. Union of lndia, lVinistry of Finance, lncome Tax department, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, of lncome Tax (Benami Properties Unit) Aayakar Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad. 4. Asst. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Unit, Hyderabad. petitioners PAN. AABC05302P, DIN and Letter No. ITBA,/COMlFl17l2021- 211032617580 (1) on the file of the 4th respondent including appearance and confiscation of :-ry document related to the annexure-A attached to the impugned summo rs pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the P rtitioner: SRI S.SHARAT KUMAR Counsel for the F -'spondent No.1: SRI B.MUKHERJEE for SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, As:;t.Sol.General Counsel for the F espondent Nos.2,3 & 4: SRI B.NARASIMHA SARMA, SC for lT The Court made he following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHITYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY Writ Petition No.13364 of 2022 ORDER: (Per Hon'hle Sri Jt6tice (tjjal Bhuvun) Heard Mr. S. Sharat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 1; and Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for income Tax Department, for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the summons dated 22.O4.2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Unit, Hyderabad, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the said authority on 03.O5.2021 and to furnish information as per Annexure-A attached to the summons. 3. Learned counsel lor the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid summons, petitioner had ( ) appeared before the summoning authority 03.0s.202 J B,] & AVR,J wf. _8)6 4 _2027 on 4. On a query by the Court as to $,hether any subsequer t summons or orders har,c beer-r issued b_v the respor lents, he submits that no such summons or orders ha'e been issued. However. he subr-rits that based on the said summons dated 22.1)4.2021 , petitioner is being harassed by being asked 1o attend the office , ,f the respondents every no ry and tht:n 5. Upor hearing learned counsel for the Jretitioner and on dr Le consideration, we are of the vrew that the impugnec summons dated 22.04.2O21 u,as date- specific, nasmuch as, as per the said s.lmmons, petitioner was called upon to atten<'l the olfice of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Benami Transacti rns (Prohibition) Unit, Hvdcracad, o r-l 03.05.20: t1 which has been compliecl n'ith. 6. If re ;pondents are of the opinion that presence of the petil cner is further required in the matter, it is open to t lem to issue fresh summons to the petitioner UB,J & AVR,J wp_13)64 2a22 7. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any subsequent suntlnons oI- order(s) that may be passed by the respondents, he may avail his remedy in accordance with law 8. Beyond the above, no further order is called for at this stage. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merit and all contentions are kept open. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to SRI S.SHARAT KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, Asst.Sol.cen. [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI B.NARASIIMHA SARIVA, SC for lT [OPUC] 4. Two C.D. Copies. 5. One Spare Copy. MRC SB c (f- 3 To HIGH COURT DATED:15103 2022 ORDER WP.No.1336,. of 2022 DISPOSING OF Tt E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v tit: S fA 1 o3 a< l c o 18 rHY 2m2 f. ?. I ,tld 1rU "