P.V.UTHAMAN NAIR V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/19431/2015

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by P.V. Uthaman Nair against several respondents including the Union of India and various tax and vigilance authorities. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to compel these authorities to investigate alleged tax evasion by the 6th respondent. The complaints, submitted between 2013 and 2015, accused the 6th respondent of amassing huge wealth through tax evasion. However, the court found the allegations to be vague and unsupported by concrete evidence, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722353 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N NAGRESH; KRISHNADAS NAIR; P CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI
• Assessee Lawyers: T C GOVINDA SWAMY; T N SREEKALA; K JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Complaints; Mandamus; Tax Evasion; Vigilance; Wealth acquisition

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/4TH MAGHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 19431 of 2015 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- P.V.UTHAMAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR (LATE) RESIDING AT “AFIN” BUILDING, NELLIVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 523. BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.T.N.SREEKALA SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (RAVIPURAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REVENUE BOARD, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX (VIGILANCE), ARYABAHANGI PINACLE, S.A ROAD, COCHIN - 682 020. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, (VIGILANCE), 4TH FLOOR, ARYABHANGI PINACLE, S.A.ROAD, COCHIN - 682 020. 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (HEAD OF SOUTH ZONE) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CHENNAI - 600 006. 6. SHRI.K.J.JOSEPH, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (RETD), KERALA POLICE, VISHRANTHI, KADANNAPPALLI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN: 670 503. 7. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATANKANA BHAVAN, GPO COMPLEX, BLOCK-A, INRA, NEW DELHI - 110 023. R1 & R7 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/ WP(C).No. 19431 of 2015 (D) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- P1: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 4/9/2013 ADDRESSED TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.26595.2013/VIGILANCE/4/ 229021 DATED 14/10/2013, RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT P3: TRUE COPY FO REPRESENTATION DATED 25/7/2014 TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE/CBI/KOCHI P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING F.NO.DPCHN2014/CACHN2014A0282 & 271/8580 DATED 29/12/2014 FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE/CBI/ACB/COCHIN P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1/4/2015 ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT P6: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 13/3/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE msv/ K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.19431 of 2015 D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2017 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court seeking consideration of Exts.P1, P3, P5 and P6 complaints which are submitted, between 2013 and 2015 to various authorities. The petitioner asserts that the petitioner had been filing such complaints against the tax evasion by the 6th respondent, which has not been enquired into by the authorities. 2. However nothing is stated in these complaints as to the exact evasion committed by the 6th respondent. But for making bland allegations of huge wealth having been amassed by the 6th respondent, there WPC.No.19431/2015 : 2 : is nothing in the complaints which would warrant a mandamus to the respondent. 3. This Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid action though styled as socially motivated, is a purely vindictive measure and this Court is not inclined to pass any orders in this writ petition. There should be available sustainable material against a person to initiate a proper enquiry and there cannot be proceedings initiated based on such loose allegations of acquisition of wealth and evasion of tax. If the extra ordinary jurisdiction is invoked to direct enquiry on such allegations; that too by premier investigative agencies that can only lead to witch-hunting. Writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge "