RAJIV MALAYIL V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/35402/2018

AI Insights

In this case, the petitioner, Rajiv Malayil, had his business searched under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, leading to the seizure of certain documents from his residence. Following the completion of the assessment, which resulted in a nil demand, the petitioner submitted representations to the second respondent for the return of the seized documents. Due to the lack of a positive response, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The court, acknowledging the routine nature of such petitions, criticized the systemic issue of officials failing to act on citizen representations and directed the authorities to address the petitioner's concerns promptly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755085 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; ARYA ANIL; NILOOFER NIZAM; SREEJITH NAIR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Document seizure; Income Tax; Writ petition
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 35402 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: RAJIV MALAYIL,AGED 57 YEARS 27/428,RANGEELA,OPPO.ZEALOTS VILLA,GOVINDAPURAM PO,CALICUT,673016. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,KOZHIKKODE- 673001. 2 THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN - 682 011. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 35402 of 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner had his business searched under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. In that process, the Income Tax authorities seized certain documents from his residence. Later, the assessment was completed, and the demand turned out to be nil. So the petitioner submitted the Exts.P7 and P8 representations to the second respondent, to get back the documents initially seized. Met with no positive reply, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the Standing Counsel for the Department submits that this Court may dispose of the writ petition fixing a time frame for the authorities to release the documents if there is no other statutory impediment for them to do so. 3. The writ petition is innocuous, so must be—at least the suitor expects—the disposal. True. But in the name of adjudication what I am doing is a ritual. A distressed citizen comes to the Court, complaining that an official—a public servant—has not been discharging his duty. I may, perhaps, get influenced by the simple -3- W.P.(C). No. 35402 of 2018 fact that I have an easy way of adjudication—and quick disposal, at that. So I order that so and so authority should consider the petitioner's representation and dispose it of. That is why I called it 'a ritual'. Easy disposal and a feather in my cap, for that seemingly gives me satisfaction as the number of cases the Court disposed of swells. But at what cost? 4. This ritual, regrettably, clogs the system and almost chokes the judicial process of adjudication. Sadly, most of the writ petitions are of this nature. The officials—more often than not—do not act even on, as I put it, innocuous representations from the citizens. So the citizens compel themselves to spend money and approach the Court, and the Court then reminds the officials of their duty. 5. I hope this tendency will stop. The whole administrative apparatus, including this Court and every institution in the organizational hierarchy of the Government, exists only for the singular purpose: to serve the citizens. And I am afraid most of the times we fail in our job. Agreed, we cannot tar everyone with the same brush. There are many diligent officials and a few not so -4- W.P.(C). No. 35402 of 2018 diligent; I hope it will make them think. 6. Here, the petitioner has first sent the Ext.P7 notice and then the Ext.P8 reminder. At least after the petitioner's filing this writ petition, the official concerned could have acted with a sense of urgency—if not of remorse—that he could have done this earlier. But that is not to be. Now the Court reminds that the official concerned must consider the petitioner's representation. Thus nudged, the authorities will look into the petitioner's grievance. I hope this ritual will stop with our increased awareness that people expect us to serve. I dispose of the writ petition. The authorities will look into the petitioner's grievance—at the earliest. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das -5- W.P.(C). No. 35402 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 21/04/2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE COMPANY FOR THE A.Y.2012-13. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2012-13. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2014-15. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2015-16. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 19/12/2016. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 06/02/2018. "