M/S RAJIV TRAVELS V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2

WP/105323/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Rajiv Travels, represented by its partner Smt. H. Ashritha, who filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, and other tax authorities, seeking to quash the recovery mode and demand recovery actions taken under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that they had deposited 15% of the disputed tax demand as required for a stay on recovery proceedings, and requested the court to direct the respondents to consider this deposit and grant a stay on the recovery actions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761269 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ PUKALE
• Keywords: Demand recovery; Stay of demand; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus; Recovery Mode
• Section: 220(6); 226(3)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA WRIT PETITION NO.105323/2017 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S RAJIV TRAVELS, PRESENT ADDRESS: G S R COMPLEX, K.C.ROAD, BELLARY 583101 (PAN: AAGFR0444M), CELL: 9482109999, EMAIL:[e-mail] REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SMT.H.ASHRITHA W/O RAVIPRAKASH. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MANOJ D.PUKALE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ‘AAYAKAR BHAVAN’ STAFF ROAD, FORT, BELLARY 583102, TEL: [phone]. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ‘AAYAKAR BHAVAN’ STAFF ROAD, KALABURGI 585105, TEL: [phone]. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ‘AAYAKAR BHAVAN’ SEDAM ROAD, 2 KALABURGI 585105, TEL: [phone]. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE EXERCISE OF RESPONDENT NO.1 OF RECOVERY MODE UNDER SECTION 226(3) OF THE IT ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-K DATED 03.04.2017 AND PRAYED FOR QUASHING THE EXERCISE OF RESPONDENT NO.1 OF DEMAND RECOVERY VIDE CALL MEMO IN ANNEXURE- N DATED 12.06.2017, NO. ARREARS/ BVVPS4722G/ITO –2/2016-17 AND SOUGHT FOR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO VACATE THE RECOVERY MODE UNDER SECTION 226(3) OF IT ACT, VIDE ANNEXURE-K DATED 03.04.2017 AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO VACATE THE DEMAND RECOVERY VIDE CALL MEMO IN ANNEXURE-N DATED 12.06.2017, NO.ARREARS/ BVVPS4722G/ITO W-2/2016-17 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 3 ORDER Office is hereby directed to show the name of Sri Y.V.Raviraj as counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3. 2. Heard both counsels. 3. The petitioner has approached this court for various reliefs particularly a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to vacate the recovery mode under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, vide Annexure-K and also vacate the demand recovery vide call memo as per Annexure-N dated 12.06.2017 and also directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to grant stay as prayed for by the petitioner vide Annexure-C dated 23.01.2017. 4. Annexure-C discloses that the petitioner has made representation seeking stay of the demand under section 220(6) on the ground that, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15 4 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kalaburagi. 5. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this court the order dated 30.03.2017 issued from the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax wherein it is stated that, if an appeal is preferred questioning the assessment, if the appellant deposits 15% of the disputed demand, as a matter of right he is entitled for stay. 6. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that, he has already deposited 15% of the disputed amount on 12.06.2017 as per Annexure-N produced before this Court. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is just and necessary to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the document Annexure-M dated 02.05.2017 wherein the petitioner categorically stated about deposit of 15% made by him, considering Annexure-M, wherein he categorically 5 stated about as to how he has deposited 15% of the total demand by the department. 8. In view of the above said circumstances, it is just and necessary to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to consider Annexure-M with reference to the deposit of 15% of the total demand and shall pass appropriate orders on the said stay application filed by the petitioner within 2 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to furnish Annexures M and N, along with a copy of this order to respondents 1 and 2. Sd/- JUDGE EM/- "